Subject Re: are raw vegan "nuts" edible or credible?
Date:
Sun, 21 Feb 1999
From:
Forest

> Tom:
> As one who tried fruitarianism under nearly ideal conditions: warm
> climate, regular sunshine and exercise, and food of incredibly high
> quality (most organic, the rest unsprayed, most food grown in the high
mineral
> content soil of Merritt Island, Florida), the serious problems I experienced
> on the fruitarian regime suggest that the currently popular "low quality
> food" excuse is nothing more than a weak rationalization advanced by folks
> who will grasp at anything to retain their idealistic (and false) fruitarian
> dogma. Fruitarianism is a failure because it is far beyond the range of
> diets that we are adapted to by evolution (and the claims of certain
> fruitarian advocates that we evolved as fruitarians, are nothing more
> than bogus crank science).

tom, to say fruitarianism doesn't work is quite common these days in the
raw
food circles, however in my mind many are jumping to conclusions here.
mental
and spiritual factors missing in peoples lives can affect the outcome of any
food experiment. often fruitarian experiments and in fact all food type
experiments reach conclusions based on physical responses and factors only.

things like lack of healthy family bonding, subconscious thoughts about
money, unresolved friendship problems, unresolved childhood traumas, things
like this can be major influences on how we may respond to foods we eat and
the outcome of diet experiments. i have tried lots of diets over the years
and
the conclusion i reached is for most of us diet is not the major thing getting
in the way of optimum health, it is an important factor, but no more than one
third of the equation.

my own experiments with fruitarianism have proved to me it's possible
under
ideal social and mental conditions but none of us in my mind are there yet,
me
included. i have found i can stabilize my limited health by being on a
predominantly fruit diet with a "stuffing" or "filler" food added that fills
the empty places in my body and spirit that a loving family should be
occupying.

all of my investigations of other people i respect in the world of diet
consciousness indicate to me that we are all suffering from stress and
traumas
on a psychological level that has us from childhood eating unnaturallly and
unconsciously, and compulsively way more food than is healthy no matter
what
diet we are on. in my opinion a psychologically balanced S.A.D. eater can be
healthyer than a psychologically imbalanced fruit eater. until we resolve
these issues and include these factors in our diet experiments we will be
getting limited results and conclusions. to date of all the diets i have
tried, this nearly all fruit diet i am on has sustained me better than any
other so far despite the overconsuming factor. if i ate fruit only without the
filler i would also like you find it a difficult or less healthy arrangement.
however, when i achieve a stable supportive consensus extended family
arrangement in my life, i hope to go back to that all fruitarian ideal and
give it some more consideration. aloha, forest
>

Subject:
can refined communication improve health?
Date:
Fri, 26 Feb 1999
From:
Forest

Liza wrote:
>
> By spiritual pursuits I guess you are referring to certain sects of Tibetan
> Buddhism.

not necessarily was refering to any form of spiritual concepts. do you
pursue
any interest in spiritual? if so what kind? in not, why not?
>
> Mackerel, horseradish, cilantro, goat's yogurt, almonds, bone marrow
> mmmmmm, coconut paste, most anything that walks, cherimoyas. Hmmm,
what
> else. Food, basically.

would most anything that walks include me if you were hungry enough?:-) do
you
kill your own food?
>
> Luck? As many close relationships as possible? Having a wild spirit? Having
> LOTS of fun?

how many close relationships do you think it is posible to have? i like women
with a wild spirit. what do you mean by spirit here? do you live in the
country or city?
>
> > that you can attempt to ridicule others who
> > share their limited experiences.
>
> My apologies. Didn't mean to hurt your feelings.

didn't hurt my feelings, just thought it a bit rude or undiplomatic or
unfriendly. thanks for the apology, i feel more hope for a friendship now.
>
> My point, which I evidently didn't make very well, was that the obsession
> one often sees in the "alternative diets" crowd (especially vegetarians and
> most especially vegans), with such things as cleanliness and detoxing and
> purging oneself (of "germs" or "toxins" or "mucous" or "parasites" or "the
> devil" or whatever and -- maybe most importantly -- the avoidance of sex
> -- that this type of mentality reminds me of the Church Lady. Maybe it's
> just the updated 90's New-Age
> version of an old shoe.

i agree there's a lotta strange ideas and obsessions floatin around in the
"health food" world these days. you say especially vegans but i see it accross
the board, even the instincto crowd seems obsessed with certain concepts
that
i feel have limitations. perhaps none of us are perfect and yet each of the
various factions has a grain or two of truth and when these grains are
carefully analysed and reconfigured they will point us to a more refined
approach. i do not avoid sex, i seek refinement with it cause i see it often
involves limitations that i think we can go beyond thru refinement.
>
> Hmmmm, actually - a REALLY old shoe, now that I'm considering farther
and
> farther back in history, across many cultures, where avoidance of
> "hedonism" or "evil" or "dirt" or of course sex -- all those "beastly"
> aspects of our nature which remind us that we're animals -- where
> avoidance of these things takes on a kind of religious fervor.

what you call avoidance i would call refinement. i see life and diet as a
continual process of refinement. when i give something up it is because i
think i have found a more fulfilling fun way to approach it.
>
> > refering to tantric diciplines: there's this old saying we probably all
heard,
> > "don't knock it till you try it."
>
> Well, that's not ALWAYS a good rule 'o thumb. There are, um, a coupla'
> things I ain't a-gonna try, and I AM a-gonna knock 'em. (I'm sure you too
> can think of a few that fall into this category.)

yes, i agree the higher the risk the more we should think it over, but no risk
at all makes life boring. you really didn't answer my question, but skirted
around it.
>
> NEVER ask a woman her age!! :)

never ask a question of someone else unless you are willing to answer it also.
:-)

aloha and peace.........forest for earth re-leaf

Subject:
Re: Natures First Law (who's counting, & what's the second
law?)
Date:
Wed, 21 Jun 2000
From:
Forest
>
>someone wrote: "Dear list, I just finished reading "Natures First Law". What
a fantastic
> book. It was so logical and to the point. Now my goal is to meet David Wolfe
> in person.

i'm not too familiar with the writings of david wolfe, but i did read thru the
raw food net works some disturbing information and proof of a considerable
amount of stolen material he rewrote almost word for word for one of his
books
claiming he wrote the stuff himself. anyone who does that i would be wary of
and not too excited to meet. my limited take on him is he's in the raw
movement for the money. he may be doing a good thing in getting the raw
food
info out there tho. f

Subject:
Re: Natures First Law (who's counting, & what's the second
law?)
Date:
Fri, 23 Jun 2000
From:
Forest

aloha barbara, my main point in this discusion was/is to caution folks about
the integrity of david wolfe. if he never comes out in public and admits he
plagerized, then he is still suspect in my mind. it's possible he has done
that and i am unaware. in regards to him making money off the raw food
movement, i think it is fine to pursue that which one believes in to make a
living; altho i think he overcharges a bit or caters to the rich and famous.
aloha f

BARB wrote:
>
> In a message dated 6/22/00 8:52:11 AM Pacific Daylight Time, cushwa
> writes:
>
> << Please, next time THINK before you stab someone in the back. I'm
sorry to
> come down so hard but it is thoughtless posts like this that can really do
> damage to someone's reputation for no reason. --tom
> >>
> Thanks, Tom!!
> Barbara

Subject:
Re: Natures First Law (who's counting, & what's the second
law?)
Date:
Fri, 23 Jun 2000
From:
Forest

Jeff wrote:
>
> Personally, I don't believe that he copied anyones words from another
> book. I have read many books about raw foods and a lot of them say the
> same things over and over again.....so, I think all of the books could be
> looked at and we could see very similar things in all of them.

hi jeff, i agree there is a lot of repetition in the raw food dialog in books,
however if you have access to old natural health m2m issues, one of them
has
extensive proof and examples of david's plagiarism, some of them whole
paragraphs almost word for word. if david is such a dedicated expert, then
why
would he have to do that and call it his own?
>
> I've also noticed that sometimes people will hear something negative about
> someone and for some reason they will take it to heart without further
> investigation.

i did carefully read the whole m2m article before jumping to conclusions.

I think this might be the case with this whole subject.
> We really do have to protect the reputations of these pioneers who are
> rocking belief systems. You should hear some of the things I've heard
> about Hulda Clark, Carolyn Myss and many others who are working hard for
> new thought systems.

if people are going for guru status they better be able to withstand lots of
scrutiny and not cheat at their games. in my mind david is not a pioneer,
heck
there were many before him. aloha f

Subject:
Re: Plagiarism: You Decide
Date:
Fri, 23 Jun 2000
From:
Forest

Jo wrote:
>
> But to what extent can I lend support to a movement that relies on
> deceit, threats of violence and bigotry towards those who are NOT raw
> NOR vegan?

good point
>
> Maybe I'm not getting it, but I haven't as yet sensed from NFL (and
> their associates) the maturity, compassion and respect for individual
> choices -- choices that sometimes extend beyond the seemingly
> immutable laws of raw vegan dietary systems.

thanks for your comments, from my limited perspective i agree. f

Subject:
Re: Natures First Law (who's counting, & what's the second
law?)
Date:
Fri, 23 Jun 2000
From:
Forest

Shari V wrote:
>
> Have you read ANYTHING by David Wolfe?

nope

Have you heard him speak?

nope

Have you
> shook his hand and looked in his eyes?

nope

I have and I can overlook his first
> book (co-written with two others). His latest "Successful Sunfood Diet
> System" is very good. And he gives credit where credit is due.

i hope you are correct in your observations of david. i believe people can
grow and change to be better and better. i just wonder why he never
admitted
to the plagairism.
>
> I have heard him speak more than a couple of times over the course of the
> last three years and he has changed, dramatically. Humble is the word
that
> comes to mind.

his prices aren't very humble.
>
> Raw food is his job. That is the way he puts food on his table and gas in
> his car. I envy him that he can make an actual living at something he
> obviously loves. Think about your favorite thing to do, anything at all.
> Now think about doing that and getting paid to do that favorite thing. I
> think the world would be a lot more balanced and joyful if more people did
> what they loved instead of doing what they think they should do to make
> enough money to pay for houses they are never in because they are living
in
> their expensive cars driving to their boring jobs to pay for empty houses
> and gas guzzling cars. Excuse me I don't know where that came from, but I
> guess it needed to come out.

i totally agree with yer statement above, more power to any who can make a
living at what they like to do. i guess i carry that example to extreem when i
propose to us all that we start a consensus raw food farm family and grow
our
own raw food and live close to nature. sometimes i get the impression that
folks are ignoring the real natural life in exchange for supporting a big
brother guru type mentality to guide and offer security in areas they are
unwilling to explore. i would be wary of david or any guru type because of
this but they do serve an important function for the follow the leader types.
aloha f

Subject:
Re: Natures First Law (who's counting, & what's the second
law?)
Date:
Fri, 23 Jun 2000
From:
Forest

Shari V wrote:
>
> gleaned from rumor -- your own words. Rumors are killers.

rumors are not necessarily killers. rumors can be viewpoints to consider with
carefull thought and further investigation. under some circumstances they
can
be invaluable.

Subject:
Re: Natures First Law (who's counting, & what's the second
law?)
Date:
Fri, 23 Jun 2000
From:
Forest

tom wrote:

> You know, Forest. This is really a cheap shot. You heard from somewhere
> that he plagiarized some material for his first book and now you are not
> very interested in what he has to say. That's too bad.

i carefully read the several examples of the plagairism before jumping to
conclusions and before making a statement of caution to others regarding
his
integrity. i am interested in david, just a bit wary and thought it worth
sharing.

By sharing that
> opinion with other people you are slandering David Wolfe by innuendo. Is
> that really what you wanted to do?

no, in my mind i did not make a false statement as slander implys.

Then you try to soften your position by
> saying that he MAY be doing a good thing by getting raw food info out
> there. Well, gee. That's great. After accusing him of being a plagiarizer
> who is only in it for the money, you say that he MAY be doing some good.

yes, noone is perfect and if we discuss someones limitations it is also good
to speak of their good points in the spirit of balance.

> Please, next time THINK before you stab someone in the back.

i did not stab anyone in the back. david is a public person, there is a good
chance he will be reading this dialog and he has every right to prove me
wrong
and i will admit it if he does. "in the back means" you wouldn't say it in
person and that is not the case here, i would gladly discuss this in
person/daughter with him.

I'm sorry to
> come down so hard but it is thoughtless posts like this that can really do
> damage to someone's reputation for no reason. --tom

anyone who truly has a good reputation usually benifits from criticism
because
others who are wise and gratefull will come to their support. aloha f

Subject:
nature's first agreement! consensus
Date:
Sat, 24 Jun 2000
From:
Forest

BARB wrote:
>
> Forrest-
> I definately believe that it is in your best interest to accept the fact that
> David does not live up to your standards and never will.

i believe we are all perfect just the way we are on some level (unconditional
love).i also believe
all people have the ability to grow and change and evolve.

Thank the universe
> we all get to decide how we feel.

ya, right on sounds good to me, create our own reality.

I love and respect alot of people that are
> not perfect....Everyone, I guess.

yes, i do too, i agree, i get the impression that you feel i am aloof, but i
really don't think so, i'll be the first to admit i'm not perfect. i been thru
the mill tryin to form extended families for years and so i'm a bit wary of
all huWoMans, but i haven't given up and i keep evolving the process.
eccentric maybe :-)

> Have some fun today let's try to forgive each other just for the hell of it.

ya, you have some fun too. i do forgive people while at the same time holding
them accountable for the heaven of it.

> Not for them, mind you, but for our peace of mind.

for the good of all if possible.

> Enough of this...Forrest-go ahead-have the last word. It appears that you
> need it.

barbara, i do not want to have the last word, in the spirit of trancendance of
polarity there is no beginning and end. i support the continuum concept. let's
keep sharing words until they turn to music....... all
we need is love. aloha and peace, forest for earth releaf.

Subject:
Re: Ehret's mild cooking? (Jo)
Date:
Sat, 24 Jun 2000
From:
Forest

hey ren, well i do think oil and mucus are more the culprits in health than
cooked veges. many raw fooders overeat in the oil and mucus areas,
including
me when i get lonely or emotionally unstable.

i had a raw food friend years ago who claimed he "raw cooked" ????? his
squash in the heat of a compost pile and it was under 110 degrees or
whatever
and it took 2 or 3 days to sugar out. i kinda don't believe it was raw.

i think it is quite possible that some cooked food has food value. probably a
matter of degrees rather than a black and white issue with raw or cooked. i
do idealize all raw and think with refinement it could problably be the ideal
goal to go for.

due to the availability of a variety of raw foods for most folks i believe it
might be practical for folks to cook some food for optimum health in the
transition to more optimum natural raw food access thru farm food coops
where
people live and grow food. the freshness of the food and the hands on
interaction will be psychological wellness factors that could over time
outweigh the debate over raw or some cooked...... well startin to ramble,
better go for now.aloha, f

from my limited perspective i do like the spirit of ehret and feel he had/has
a good influence on the raw food movement

Ren wrote:
>
> I have been reading Prof. Arnold Ehret's "Mucusless Diet Healing System"
and
> I was wondering what you guys think about this "mild" cooking of some
> veggies.

Subject:
Re: Steaming LOVE
Date:
Tue, 27 Jun 2000
From:
Forest

Charles wrote:
>
> Another consideration is this: I live in a big city (Toronto), yet there are
zero raw-food restaurants and a small raw-food community. Sharing food is
one of
my favourite communal activities. Of course, I always seek restaurants with
organic salads, and I always bring raw food dishes to potluck's... Yet, I have
no
doubt as to the most important ingredient in any dish: L-O-V-E.

hi charles, you make a good point here. i know a lotta raw fooder types
including me who due to refinements in eating have found the self isolated
and
lonely a lotta the time. sometimes i wonder where to draw the line with social
interactions, if we get too involved socially we overcompromise our ideals, if
we don't we suffer with lack of social bonding. for years i been eating alone,
after years of this habit i now find it very disturbing to eat with others due
to the stressful conversations that often happen around the table, especially
conversations about food.

if one has the support of nature nearby i actually think it's healthier to
eat alone or at least in relative quiet or silence to stay centered and
focused for the long haul of dealing with our unnatural oral fixations
developed in early childhood due to the degree of unnatural living our parents
have had to go thru in the process. well, slow but movin i'm gonna try to get
the best of both worlds by forming a natural consensus family farm retreat.
in
the ideal eating environment i see us eating not at restaurants but in the
jungle under or in a tree and now and then when we get to the tree a friend
or
two may be there to share the experience. in the meantime aloha and peace,
f

Subject:
Re: Nuts and Fasting on Sundays
Date:
Tue, 27 Jun 2000
From:
Forest

someone wrote: I hear that it is not so good to
> combine nuts with really wet fruits because of the fat, water inmixibility
> (is that a word?)...have you experienced this or heard it as well?

the fact that nut oil in general is insoluable in water in my mind makes nuts
questionable as food, at least in large quantities. it seems to me that all
food becomes more accessable to the cells of the body by disslolving and
emulsyfying with the water liquid in the body. if it is too sticky it inhibits
access of nutrients to the cells and actually if continued gums up the whole
system. when i occasionally pig out on nuts i usually eat or drink with the
nuts a generous amount of acid or subacid fruit or juice. in my limited
thinking the slipperiness of the fruit juice aids in moving the mucusy nut
oils thru the digestive system more quickly so it's not so likely to get stuck
so long and gum things up.

Subject:
raw karma
Date:
Wed, 28 Jun 2000
From:
Forest

attuner wrote:
>
> here we go again forest - you sound as if you know all about karma, in
> order to state as if fact: " ...the less vital our life is due to the
> karma."

i also said "if you believe it is real" knowing that karma is a major division
area in belief systems. i merely state opinions of forest for any particular
time and they may change. i think that is what we are all doing isn't it?
people can decide for themselves where they stand on issues and do further
research to check it out if it appears to have some merit. also if you look
thru the emails i send i often start forest opinions or viewpoints with "from
my limited perspective" etc. to indicate that i am still learning and trying
to remain humble about opinions. you seem to resent forest opintions, well i
value yours, please keep me on my toes if you like.

while i can agree with much of what you write in this post,
> especially about family dysfunction being a primary culprit in
> disease, please stop making these fantastic assumptions about
> something which is only in the realm of the divine mystery.

perhaps for most it is divine mystery, but not for all.

that is
> unless you also have an answer on that too?

i have definate opinions and viewpoints based on lots of reading and
experience for what it's worth but i still have many unanswered questions.

do sick infants have "bad"
> karma and that is why they are stillborn, deformed, etc?

looks like you answered yer own question here? perhaps in a past life they
fought wars and killed babies. i could think of a lotta scenarios. just
remember as i said before i don't expect everyone to believe in karma, i have
had enough discussions like this to know many can not handle the discussion
of
karma, which in forest's mind relates to the level of responsibility that
karma represents.

please,
> opinions about so called karma is just that....opinion.

i agree and that's all anything i ever write will be.

if one reaps
> as one sows ( the biblical version of karma), i for one cannot answer
> how some unfortunate innocent babe 'reaps' illness.

you have brought up an example i have heard many times before, it is a good
example to question, don't take forest's word for it, meditate and study on it
if it facinates you like it does me. if there really is past lives then why
would you see babes as innocent?

and to perhaps
> smugly answer 'karma' is way too simplistic and perhaps not getting to
> the real truth. and the truth may be that it's all in god's hands to
> begin with.

to me there is a direct connection between karma and what you prefer to
call god.
i don't think i am too smug, don't we all have some degree of that?

but then you personally never went for "god" as you have
> stated publicly on this list, so i don't imagine that now you have
> softened your position regarding such deep matters.

as i said before the word god has traditional connotations to it that i find
flawed, therefore i hesitate to use it, however if we can reach agreement on
a
definition i might.

how about
> lightening up as in the famous bumper sticker: "you hitta my car, i
> breaka your karma." neil

how about you lightening up and real-eyes i am only stating opinions and
viewpoints like everybody else here, unless you have a real issue with me,
why
single me out. if this is a forum for discussing natural health issues, in my
mind that includes a "whole-istic" approach which for me includes body, mind,
and SPIRIT issues.

Subject:
Re: Prana as food
Date:
Wed, 28 Jun 2000
From:
Forest
>
> > In a message dated 06/28/2000 1:54:13 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> > vicky writes:
> >
> > > The life energy that we recieve (prana) is only 10% from food, the rest
> > > is from LIFE!!!!! We are are only partly physical beings!!!>

thanks vicky, i think you make a good point here. f

Subject:
Re: NFL
Date:
Thu, 29 Jun 2000
From:
Forest

Underfog wrote:
> My experience is that it is futile to try and change anothers behavior.

unfortunately many people today feel helpless in a world of bullies and
cheaters and surrender to what is with little or no effort to change it. i
admire jo for carrying on a bit, we can always hit the delete button.

i am
grateful that thru out his/herstory a few dedicated people got together to
try
to change the status quo. most of them suffered dearly for their efforts.
peer
group support can reduce the suffering, so if we don't wanna be on the
frontlines at least show support in some way, and try not to feel holding
people accountable is futile. with unconditional love and assertion as opposed
to agression we can melt the heart of the toughest bully, not easy but a skill
worth learning for spiritual evolution. aloha f

Subject:
peer group support
Date:
Thu, 29 Jun 2000
From:
Forest

bob wrote:
> Sorry, I don't know how to make someone apologize and attempt to make
> amends who doesn't want to do so. That's for higher powers than I.

peer group support is one way and in my mind the best way i can think of,
surprised bob that you say you don't know how, wouldn't it be more true if
you
said you just don't care. in a way i don't care either, but i support jo on
his mission and would sign the petition he suggests. i admire his
perserverence in an age of short attention span. f

Subject:
is controversy natural?
Date:
Thu, 29 Jun 2000
From:
Forest

bob wrote:
>
> This makes sense to me. I was wondering why these polemics were making
> me feel uncomfortable. Didn't Jesus say, "Let he who is without sin cast
> the first stone" and, also in the Bible, "Judgment is mine, saith the
> Lord"?

jesus was quite a polemic in his day and still is in the minds of many. i
don't think any want to judge so much as appeal for some resolve to clear
the
slate before sweeping under the rug and movin on. i see the point but lack
initiative, i will sign a petition tho. i don't feel uncomfortable in
controversy, i find it stimulating and interesting and a way to gain new
insights regarding the group mind by carefully listening to others and tryin
to weigh out all the diverse opinions. this is what consensus communications
is all about. easier said than done. i wouldn't wanna do it all day, but a
little every now and then spices up life it seems to me, not to mention is
part of the spiritual evolution process. balance, life in many ways comes
down
to balance, well guess i'm ramblin........aloha f

Subject:
re:NFL & Is controversy natural?
Date:
Fri, 30 Jun 2000
From:
Underfog

underfog writes:
Perhaps you misunderstood me. I am not saying spreading the word is futile.
If a person choses to take this information to heart and change, that is
their choice. Apparently NFL has chosen not address this issue in any
meaningful fashion. A post or two letting people know about this issue is
appropriate, clearly the people on this list have heard the word and are
aware of the issue.

My point is further discussion belongs on another list. Maybe a legal or
moral discussion group. As the Home page states "the purpose of this list
is to facilitate love and communication between raw food eaters and those
who
want to be". We are not here to discuss how to make David Wolfe and
Company
better people.

I would appreciate it if you would move your NFL discussion to another list
and respect the primary intent of this list.

Thanks

Jim

Subject:
what degree of restriction is healthy?
Date:
Fri, 30 Jun 2000
From:
Forest

Underfog wrote:
>
> I would appreciate it if you would move your NFL discussion to another list
> and respect the primary intent of this list.

i see yer point here tho i hope you take some of the points i made along the
way to heart plus the recent one i made to shari. nfl was never my
discussion
as you imply above and i woulda quit weeks ago if i didn't find it so
interesting and relevant to natural health issues. unfortunately others have
had enough. how limiting to think folks have to shut others down while at the
same time having the freedom to delete. perhaps i need to find or create a
site that allows a more wholistic approach to natural wellness including raw
foods. anyone here know of such a site?

Subject:
what am i doin here????
Date:
Fri, 30 Jun 2000
From:
Forest

Underfog wrote:
>
As the Home page states "the purpose of this list
> is to facilitate love and communication between raw food eaters and those
who
> want to be". We are not here to discuss how to make David Wolfe and
Company
> better people.

all the emails i contributed to rawlife on david wolfe and company or any
other matter are for the purpose to facilitate love and communication
between
raw food eaters and those like me who see merit in the idea.

Subject:
Big Brother is holding us and we let it happen and it's ok
Date:
Sun, 02 Jul 2000
From:
Forest

Underfog wrote:

> Acceptance is the answer to all my problems today. ;)

> I'm done discussing it.

as far as i'm concerned this attitude is what allowed hitler and other
eco-destructive bullies to run rampant and nearly destroy the earth and it's
inhabitants. it never ceases to amaze me how complacent folks can be
sometimes, the self included. it's a follow the leader world out there and
leaders are more often than not tempted by their power over the masses to
wanna control more people and nature in the quest to reach the top of the
pile. competition reigns supreme. heck we're all still running around in
toxic vehicles, not to mention hundreds of other similar madness. we are
startin to look at the toxic in the food we eat tho, so don't be too critical
forest.

it's good to be reminded how dependant on big brother the world and this list
is, i so easily forget as a hermit out here in the jungle. i do look forward
to the natural consensus peer group support and mind but also try to realize
it will be difficult to achieve in the near future or even on the earth plane.
but hey, i'm a stuborn practical idealist, i know it's possible. anyone else
out there lookin for the "beyond big brother" paradigm? i thought women's lib
would lead to women's equal responsibility but heck i see a lotta city men as
irresponsible with nature and each other thru their lifestyles and actions as
women due to lack of knowledge on how to live in nature sustainably. i know
it's a matter of degrees and nobodies perfect(heck after all these years
tryin
to find support i've almost given up on the whole idea meself. wouldn't it be
neat if we could actually survive in nature with out a lotta big brothers
bullying and protecting and destroying us and the environment, i know it's
possible and i thank ya'll for reminding me of what is. i keep tryin to quit
this discussion but some of the responses of others compel me to add two
cents
more. still tryin to subdue my sarcastic critical nature. aloha and peace,
forest

Subject:
getting along
Date:
Mon, 03 Jul 2000
From:
Forest

judy wrote:
> "Can't we all just get along"

yes....... some of us already are getting along even tho we may not always
agree or have the same interests. aloha and peace, f

Subject:
Consensus peer group support
Date:
Mon, 3 Jul 2000
From:
Underfog

underfog wrote:
I respect and even support some of your viewpoints regarding David Wolfe &
Company. As I said in my first post, I appreciate the information. The
evidence seems clear that the book was recopied and sold as an original. I
do not condone or encourage this behavior in anyone.

I have attended events where David Wolfe is a speaker. I find him to be a
dynamic speaker with a message that reaches many who are just starting
the
rawfoods journey. He along with several other rawfood activists were very
inspiring to me when I first started this journey. I have since found him to
be lacking in personal integrity as evidenced by the long history of his
unwillingness to address the plagiarism issue, as well as the fanaticism that
seems to follow him around. I was very disappointed to learn about some of
his character defects! I have never spoken in support of plagiarism.

I have repeatedly stated that it is my opinion that this particular prolonged
discourse belongs on another posting site. I just feel "enough already."
There are plenty of websites that are several years old where this argument
is well documented. This is a very old topic. All I ever asked of you is
that if you feel you must continue this discussion to graciously take it to
another place. You have refused even though the originator of the string has
agreed to stop.

Now this string has turned into a philosophical discussion of core beliefs
and world views.

"Acceptance is this answer to all my problems today" refers to a story in the
book of Alcoholics Anonymous which talks about a person's frustrating
experience trying to control another's behavior. I referred to it because
Shari talked about her experience in AA and it was a way of showing support
for her and myself. The parable relates to this situation in that after
asking you to stop this string and getting no results, I have the choice of
continually arguing with you about it or accept that you have a different
point of view and graciously step aside. I am attempting to choose the
latter with regard to the list.

I am sure upon close examination we could find character deficiencies in
most
people we meet. This is not an excuse for a person's "poor" behavior but a
perspective I have adopted which allows me to get along in the world without
continually judging people as good or bad. I find that I can maintain a
personal peace of mind by learning who a person is and expecting them to
continue to be that person. For example if a person fails to meet their
commitments 20% of the time, I expect that they will fail to meet some of
the
agreements we might make. If their behavior becomes intolerable to me
then I
choose to not make any agreements with them. I refrain from labeling them
a
bad person for not living up to my standards. The consequences of their
behavior will create pain in their life. When the pain becomes too much they
may change.

This is not about my complacency. I have a long history of political and
personal activism. In my opinion, social change is achieved through footwork
of the individual and groups who are carrying a message. I have stood up and
will continue to stand up for basic human rights. I donate time and money to
several areas that I feel strongly about. I have built affordable housing.
I have protested to save the environment. I have volunteered in drug rehab
clinics. I have marched as a straight man for gay rights. I have designed &
built solar housing and donated these facilities to various impoverished
areas. I have supported animal rights by volunteering and with my check
book. I actively support the rawfoods movement with my time and money. I
hope you can at least see that my lifestyle does not support the
eco-destructive behaviors of the mass mind. Maybe living in the jungle
somewhat isolated from the mainstream you fail to experience that there
are
many who live closer to the mainstream system and are actively involved in
reworking and rebuilding it with works rather than talks. It is not a better
philosophy just a different one.

It is insensitive to throw out a controversial statement such as you did when
you stated "as far as I'm concerned this attitude is what allowed Hitler and
other eco-destructive bullies to run rampant and nearly destroy the earth
and
it's inhabitants" when you fail to understand my world view. I am sure such
a statement was painful for some of the members to read, especially those
with Jewish heritage whose families suffered greatly at the hands of this
mass murderer. I know you touched some deep personal pain of mine. Such
a
generalization about the consequences of a person's belief system can very
easily breed division rather that the natural consensus peer group support
you seem to desire.

If the issue is standing up to a mass murderer I will make a different
choice. The issue is plagiarism and while certainly it is a worthy issue in
terms of integrity, practical idealism suggests that the course of action is
not the same. It is an injustice to those that suffer at the hands of a mass
murderer to compare the two.

In my opinion, consensus is achieved when we graciously accept other peoples
points of views and defects of character and allow the group to go forward
even when we believe that direction is wrong. Knowledge is learned through
experience by and large. If the direction turns out to be a poor choice we
can chart a new course.

Jim

Subject:
Re: getting along
Date:
Mon, 3 Jul 2000
From:
BARB

Forest, you are the most arrogant guy, posing as a peacenik that I have ever
heard.

Subject:
Re: getting along
Date:
Tue, 04 Jul 2000
From:
Vicky

vicky reponds to barb: And name slinging isnt arrogant??? I have thought
that Forest has
an very balenced view of whats goin' on, unlike lots of others
I meet/see/read.......

Just writing such an email wastes more spiritual energy than you would
gain from raw food in a day....... and thats what keeps us healthy!

Why do people graviate towards ego battles?? Because they are
so low in energy to start with, and ego battle is a place where
small amounts can be gained, and large amounts can be lost.......

I;'d rather steer clear!!!

Smiles,
Franny

Subject:
Amends
Date:
Tue, 4 Jul 2000
From:
BARB

Dear Group,
I need to apologize for my last comment. Please forgive my hot-headed
remark.
I was not behaving in the spirit of tolerance and love that I have seen
displayed by most contributors. Sorry for the offense.
Barb

Subject:
Re: Consensus peer group support
Date:
Mon, 03 Jul 2000
From:
Forest

Underfog wrote:

This is a very old topic. All I ever asked of you is
> that if you feel you must continue this discussion to graciously take it to
> another place. You have refused even though the originator of the string
has
> agreed to stop.

i have not refused anything and a long while back changed the subject to core
beliefs and world views and i think they are related to raw food in an
indirect way like fasting or headaches. if we wanna have lots of raw foods in
the future we better learn how to get along better(consensus) and get
closer
to nature without a big brother. if we wanna enjoy raw foods we better learn
to process some of our oral fixations to get on with the show. much of what
i
talk about investigates those type issues, if someone else were addressing
them i might not be so vehement.
>
> Now this string has turned into a philosophical discussion of core beliefs
> and world views.

raw foods is a philosophy in a global world connected by many threads to
what
i discuss, mainly the psychological factors related to natural living and
wellness.
>
> "Acceptance is this answer to all my problems today" refers to a story in
the
> book of Alcoholics Anonymous which talks about a person's frustrating
> experience trying to control another's behavior. I referred to it because
> Shari talked about her experience in AA and it was a way of showing
support
> for her and myself. The parable relates to this situation in that after
> asking you to stop this string and getting no results, I have the choice of
> continually arguing with you about it or accept that you have a different
> point of view and graciously step aside. I am attempting to choose the
> latter with regard to the list.

i made my case earlier about how i felt about the above statement in the
context in which it was presented and i just wanted to add two cents worth, i
feel others critical of me here are less willing to drop the subject. based on
your comments and actions you are unwilling to let this subject go, as i said
i am on to other things. i wonder why others hesitate to address the points i
make and instead tell me to shut up. says a lot to me about something.
>
> I am sure upon close examination we could find character deficiencies in
most
> people we meet. This is not an excuse for a person's "poor" behavior but a
> perspective I have adopted which allows me to get along in the world
without
> continually judging people as good or bad.

i agree, but i still like to discuss sensitive issues that have a big
influence on our health and wellbeing. just tryin to show the
interconnectedness.

I find that I can maintain a
> personal peace of mind by learning who a person is and expecting them to
> continue to be that person.

expecting anything of someone else in my mind is a trap, what if they change
for the better? in a way you have judged them. i see yer point tho and do the
same to a degree.

For example if a person fails to meet their
> commitments 20% of the time, I expect that they will fail to meet some of
the
> agreements we might make. If their behavior becomes intolerable to me
then I
> choose to not make any agreements with them.

i agree with the above, i do that also.

I refrain from labeling them a
> bad person for not living up to my standards. The consequences of their
> behavior will create pain in their life. When the pain becomes too much
they
> may change.

i agree
>
> This is not about my complacency. I have a long history of political and
> personal activism. In my opinion, social change is achieved through
footwork
> of the individual and groups who are carrying a message. I have stood up
and
> will continue to stand up for basic human rights. I donate time and money
to
> several areas that I feel strongly about. I have built affordable housing.
> I have protested to save the environment. I have volunteered in drug rehab
> clinics. I have marched as a straight man for gay rights. I have designed &
> built solar housing and donated these facilities to various impoverished
> areas. I have supported animal rights by volunteering and with my check
> book. I actively support the rawfoods movement with my time and money.
I
> hope you can at least see that my lifestyle does not support the
> eco-destructive behaviors of the mass mind. Maybe living in the jungle
> somewhat isolated from the mainstream you fail to experience that there
are
> many who live closer to the mainstream system and are actively involved in
> reworking and rebuilding it with works rather than talks. It is not a better
> philosophy just a different one.

i agree and i accept yer point as valid. thanks for your activism.
>
> It is insensitive to throw out a controversial statement such as you did
when
> you stated "as far as I'm concerned this attitude is what allowed Hitler and
> other eco-destructive bullies to run rampant and nearly destroy the earth
and
> it's inhabitants" when you fail to understand my world view. I am sure such
> a statement was painful for some of the members to read, especially
those
> with Jewish heritage whose families suffered greatly at the hands of this
> mass murderer. I know you touched some deep personal pain of mine.
Such a
> generalization about the consequences of a person's belief system can
very
> easily breed division rather that the natural consensus peer group support
> you seem to desire.

well in my mind yer generalized statement, "acceptance is the answer to all
my
problems today" especially in the context in which it was presented is
insensitive also or too general.
>
> If the issue is standing up to a mass murderer I will make a different
> choice.

we all draw lines in different places in our lives, i accept that, but it
doesn't prevent me from sharing how i feel in a discussion.

The issue is plagiarism and while certainly it is a worthy issue in
> terms of integrity, practical idealism suggests that the course of action is
> not the same. It is an injustice to those that suffer at the hands of a mass
> murderer to compare the two.

all bullies and cheaters and power trippers have similar styles, i just wanted
to point out how yer statement hit me. i see now that you have a slightly
different take on it and perhaps i overreacted to it. i do think if we give in
to a cheater now and then or say i don't wanna talk about this anymore
without
finalizing things that this pattern leads to complacency which over time may
karmically put a mass murderer in our midst instead of a plagairizer.
>
> In my opinion, consensus is achieved when we graciously accept other
peoples
> points of views and defects of character and allow the group to go forward
> even when we believe that direction is wrong.

i agree it is good to graciously accept other peoples points of view and
defects of character, however if i disagree with the group as to direction,
then i owe it to meself and the group to state my case. we all live in a world
of majority rule now so ya'll want the dissenter to shut up but in consensus
we listen to them carefully, sometimes they may have our best interests in
mind that we are too in a hurry to notice.

Knowledge is learned through
> experience by and large. If the direction turns out to be a poor choice we
> can chart a new course.

some of us may already have had a poor experience already and can help the
group avoid it, if they are willing to listen and take to heart the point of
view. aloha f

Subject:
Re: Consensus peer group support
Date:
Tue, 04 Jul 2000
From:
Forest

someone said:> >ego battle is a place where
> >small amounts can be gained, and large amounts can be lost......
>
> A very wise comment.

forest writes: it's all a matter of perception and how we percieve the
purpose sometimes, how
bout this one? "consensus discussion is a place where large amounts can be
gained, and small amounts can be lost." do we just ignore hot issues cause it
exposes us as ego-centered or do we try somehow to go beyond
it(consensus) and
explore new ground or refine how we interact.

Subject:
Re: getting along
Date:
Tue, 04 Jul 2000
From:
Forest

hi barb, i saw the appology to the group for this posting. i decided to write
in to say i hope somehow we can be friends. if you still feel i am arogant and
would like to discuss in private about that or any other critique you wanna
share i am open to that.

i do admit i have a weakness for sarcasm when others attack me, but i am
making a serious effort to get beyond it, you shoulda heard me a few years
ago, i used to get kicked and punched and beat up all the time by people who
bullied me because of my comments to them. one neighbor used to
apropriately
call me a smart ass gahndi(arrogant peacenik????). i do think i am getting
beyond that and hope somehow to bring out the importance of psychological
wellness to this health list. my goal is not to offend but to bring out
psychological issues we tend ignore that affect our wellbeing.

BARB wrote:
>
> Forest, you are the most arrogant guy, posing as a peacenik that I have
ever
> heard.

Subject:
Re: Detoxification and Period Assessment
Date:
Tue, 04 Jul 2000
From:
Forest

Jo wrote:
>
> When we state that the purpose of this list is to provide support to
> those who follow or aspire to follow a raw food lifestyle, I hope
> that part of this will integrate the "bad" news along with the "good."

hey jo, one afterthought, the good news is that all raw is best, the not so
good news to all you all raw fanatics is that all raw only accounts for 5-10%
difference in wellness quality between all raw and healthy vegan partially
cooked. this is just a rough guess from my limited perspective. but hey every
little bit helps so it's worth it. f

Subject:
The Whole-istic Picture
Date:
Wed, 05 Jul 2000
From:
Forest
>
someone said:> Hi Bob - absolutely. But in my case, all those other factors
were
> accounted for and I still could not maintain lean body mass and
> strength.

what about family bonding to relieve oral fixation stress syndrome? most
folks
including me it seems are caught in the modern social trends to dissolve
family ties and live more independant of each other. this for me is not by
choice. this affects my stamina. i tend to overeat.

Around year 10, I began losing stamina, suffered from
> receding and bleeding gums. I suspected the quality of the foodstuff,
> pesticides, etc, but making corrections in that area for two years
> did not help.

receeding and bleeding gums are one of the most prevelent problems in
modern
society of all diets so i would hesitate to use it as a clearcut reason.
>
> Hi Forest - are the poor examples you've seen long term or short?
> What problems do you observe?

both long and short, one of the most common problems i observe on all raw
is
the "lean and hungry look". occasionally i will spend enough time with these
types to notice that the are eating way too much or too often or too many
combinations or too oily and/or mucusy. anyway these are just some of my
limited observations. most of us have unnatural family backgrounds and
therefore it seems to me that we are all overeating to some degree out for
lack of social bonding in a more natural consensus family atmosphere instead
of the competetive unnatural one the traditional society has programed us
for.
aloha f

Subject:
Re: E3 & food combinations??
Date:
Wed, 05 Jul 2000
From:
Forest

Marlene wrote:
>
> So can I hear about some food combination information, please???

aloha marlene, i think for optimum health exploring and experimenting with
food combining is important. it's all a matter of degrees of refinement, how
far does anyone wanna go with refinements in life. when i am in good spirits
and things are feeling family i tend to try and go for one food at a time
since i feel it is easier for the body to know what to do. the more we play
with combinations the more we confuse the body. i'm really not sure what's
ideal.

when i am low in spirits i often eat less consciously, more for pleasure and
then it is hard to not combine foods to have an oral pleasure ride. the more
combinations i add the more difficult it is the next day to get back to normal
or more balance. sometimes tho i may do a lotta combining and survive ok
for
it. i'm still in doubt about how important it is, but i do think it is a
major player in the refinement of diet.

i do think whether all raw or not, investigating the combining approach is
worth checking out tho perhaps less important to be aware of on raw due to
the
relative liquidity of the foods which help keep it moving thru the body. some
exceptions like raw nuts because of their stickyness and oilyness i avoid
eating with sweet or dry fruit. in general if we do combine it may be helpful
to eat the juicier foods first. for instance eating a buncha nuts and then
eating watermellon for me could be a problem. in general i would say the
more
similar the foods the better they combine. i hardly ever combine fruits and
veges tho it appears some on the list here do and seem ok with it. well
testing one two is about all i can say for sure. aloha f

Subject:
Re: The Whole Picture
Date:
Wed, 05 Jul 2000
From:
Forest

Jo wrote:
>
> Hi Forest - are the poor examples you've seen long term or short?
> What problems do you observe?

another afterthought on this subject. i have witnessed a lotta tooth related
problems so you may be right to a degree in yer observations, just not sure
it's just me and friends gettin older just like the rest of the masses.

Subject:
Re: The Whole Picture
Date:
Thu, 06 Jul 2000
From:
Forest

forest writes: funny how this list and thread ignores family bonding issues
and always trys
to compartmentalize health issues into food problems and discussions only. i
guess it must be me, but i could swear they are connected. i guess family
issues are too sensitive to discuss in public. how unfortunate that one of the
most crucial areas of wellness is the least explored or discussed. well, in
any event, in the mean time have fun eating. f

Subject:
Re: The Whole Picture
Date:
Thu, 06 Jul 2000
From:
Forest

attuner wrote:
>
> which just goes to show that in some cases, more protein is essential
> for health.

well, if that is true why do gorillas look so pumped up on their frugal diet,
how much protein does an elephant eat? also why does the protein have to be
animal based and cooked?
not all this line of thinking makes sense to me.

Subject:
Re: The Whole Picture
Date:
Thu, 06 Jul 2000
From:
Forest

attuner wrote:

i can't do this while he
> is still away, so please be patient with those of us online now who
> really don't want to explore this area.

i think folks may be misunderstanding me.

i don't need to explore this sad issue any further and maybe
> others feel the same.

the fact that you see this as a sad issue demonstrates the importance of it
in
our daily health. i know it ain't easy but i find it interesting, usefull, and
hopeful to explore and discuss.

maybe you're young enough in years to keep
> exploring this, but some of us have gone around the sun enough times
> to know it is an issue that is in the past, in the west, and it's time
> to turn east to the future. maybe you're the one that needs to let go?
> neil

the fact that i am not young makes me want to explore it all the more to
figure out some refinements and perhaps find more joy and meaning in life
before i die. strange that you advise letting go of refinement of the family
when to me it seems more crucial to our health than raw foods or part raw.

Subject:
Re: Family Bonding Issues
Date:
Thu, 06 Jul 2000
From:
Forest

HFWESSELS wrote:

> this is called "rawlife", a web page for raw foodders. Yes, family bonding
> issues are part of health but I am sure that if you wish to discuss these
> issues you can find numerous websites for that.

i guess yer right, i can go somewhere else, been gettin the feelin i should
leave for a while here, guess i identify with raw fooders and since i feel
whole-istic in the approach to wellness, i thought perhaps i could overlap and
explore issues like that here, but the general vibe i get is to not talk about
other issues. i suspect if i did find a site that talked about refinement of
the family they would find talking about raw foods outta place. anyone know
of
a whole-istic wellness site out there? aloha f

Subject:
Re: Family Bonding Issues
Date:
Thu, 6 Jul 2000
From:
"Mark

Forest said,

> i guess yer right, i can go somewhere else, been gettin the feelin i
should
> leave for a while here, guess i identify with raw fooders and since i feel

Stick around, your contributions are valuable. Speaking for myself, I don't
mind if the discussions get a bit off topic. Talking about only raw food
gets boring after a while.

Mark

Subject:
Re: Family Bonding Issues
Date:
Thu, 06 Jul 2000
From:
Forest

Shari V wrote:
>
> Guess maybe some of us have taken care of our family issues or are in a
> constant process.

i see family issues as a continual refinement process with consensus as a
major player in the refinement process.
>
> Personally our family uses the 12 step programs of Alcoholics Anonymous
and
> Al-Anon. We find that works very well for our situation.

i have been involved with 12 step, etc. but without consensus people ramble
on
with
their own personal issues by dominating or following others creating stress
which leads to cigarettes and coffee sessions afterward. it is a "step" or
should i say "12 steps" in the right direction tho and i feel it is doing a
some good. what if i said i know a similar but better way than twelve step
program?
>
> We also have very little contact with the people that cause us the most
pain
> and harm, emotionally, mentally, and physically.

in my mind unless our families operate with consensus, they may cause the
most
pain over time since we spend the most time with our families. even tho it
may
be less pain than what we recieve by mingling with the masses in the street
the day after day subtle control factors add up to stress and poor health. i
think that is why so many today prefer to live alone despite the fact that
that has it's limitations also. no way am i going back to the "father knows
best" type family or the role playing family scene.
>
> And - it's none of anyone else's business what my family issues are. You
> have yours, I have mine and no amount of raw food is going to change
them.

i know it's none of my business what yer family issues are, but if we don't
openly discuss family health or seek support for growth and change with
family
then we slowly give in to what is and become complacent about change and
improvement or refinement within the family. i see this prevelant in modern
society and am surprised others don't see it and wanna do something about
it.
i think part of the reason for that is that many folks have never had an
opportunity to explore the good side of hermithood and are therefore afraid
to
be alone with themselves or nature. they would rather be a part of a
dysfunctional family than to be left alone to look deeply at life without a
big brother nearby. this leads to a co-dependant family scene and this is
what
i feel is one of the biggest and most ignored health issues.
>
> Page 449 "Alcoholics Anonymous" from the chapter "Doctor, Alcoholic,
> Addict": And acceptance is the answer to ALL my problems today. When I
am
> disturbed, it is because I find some person, place, thing, or situation -
> some fact of my life - unacceptable to me, and I can find no serenity until
> I accept that person, place, thing, or situation as being exactly the way it
> is supposed to be at this moment. Nothing, absolutely nothing happens in
> God's world by mistake. Until I could accept my alcoholism, I could not
> stay sober; unless I accept life completely on life's terms, I cannot be
> happy. I need to concentrate not so much on what needs to be changed in
the
> world as on what needs to be changed in me and in my attitudes."

i see yer point about acceptance and it is valid, just remember if that
acceptance doesn't add continual growth and refinement on a daily basis to
our
lives then in my mind we have become ***too accepting*** and that will lead
to
complacency and poor health due to control and manipulation factors. in
other
words if we accept traditional family values and don't question or seek
refinement then in my mind we are stuck. i see a lotta families stuck that
way, in fact all the ones i have encountered thus far. i guess it's a matter
of degrees, some are less dysfunctional than others.
>
> I can't change my mother, father, brother, husband, children, I can only
> change myself and what's going on inside of me. Seems the more I work on
me
> the better my relationships are with others.

i agree we can't change others, and my point in bringing up this subject is
not to change other family members. the best way to teach is by example
and
anyone dedicated to that will over time change others, it's just a matter of
time and it is different for everyone when and how and how much they may
change or grow. i agree the more we grow in ourself the better our
relationships will be.
>
> Don't expect anymore from me on this subject. There are 12 step
websites
> out there for this very purpose.

i try not to expect anything from anybody, but as i said i am familiar with
the 12 step process, just find it also somewhat limiting and not the bottom
line on family health. aloha, forest

Subject:
Re: The Whole Picture
Date:
Thu, 06 Jul 2000
From:
"Ricky

Nutritional requirements and processing vary among species. The Panda eats
almost exclusively eucalyptus leaves and branches, a diet that would soon
kill a human.
>
forest wrote: > well, if that is true why do gorillas look so pumped up on
their frugal
>diet,
>how much protein does an elephant eat? also why does the protein have to
be
>animal based and cooked?
>not all this line of thinking makes sense to me.

Subject:
Re: The Whole Picture
Date:
Thu, 06 Jul 2000
From:
attuner

it is sad as in s.a.d. - standard american diet. eating is a given. what you eat
is highly personal. however
forest, PLEASE TAKE NOTE: the nazi's in germany were strict vegans.
ACHTUNG! maybe even
rawists. i'd say they had a heck of a lot more going on then family. yes, ones
choices are crucial and
WHAT one eats is an interesting topic. HOW one eats is even more important.
but whether you stay
enmeshed in the dietary pattern of family of origin, or you break away, you
have for each person who
chooses raw, a story of discovery. that is the reason for the into to the list.
but do i misunderstand you?:
you want to explore why ones family of origin typically creates a lifelong
habit of eating poorly? do you
need our tribal reinforcement as to why you are not going along with your
family of origin by being raw?
is this a matter of list support for you because you still have family issues?
are you in that jungle of
yours too long all by yourself? ( joke). i will support you, but it doesn't mean i
find "family" particularly
interesting or useful. it is certainly a distraction away from where i find
more joy and meaning in life. my
allegiance and energies are with the family i create amongst my friends and
loved ones i choose. neil

Subject:
Re: The Whole Picture
Date:
Thu, 06 Jul 2000
From:
Forest

attuner wrote:
>
> it is sad as in s.a.d. - standard american diet. eating is a given.

i don't understand this as a response to me in previous email regarding sad
about family scene?

PLEASE TAKE NOTE: the
> nazi's in germany were strict vegans. ACHTUNG! maybe even rawists. i'd
> say they had a heck of a lot more going on then family.

the families back then were traditional male dominated scenes. i am refering
to consensus families for more health, not the old standard.

but do i misunderstand you?: you want to
> explore why ones family of origin typically creates a lifelong habit
> of eating poorly?

that is part of it, the let's look at where the problem came from, the other
more exciting side of the equation is what can we do to improve the
situation.

do you need our tribal reinforcement as to why you
> are not going along with your family of origin by being raw?

don't need it but it's nice to know it's there.

is this a
> matter of list support for you because you still have family issues?

yes, i think we all do until consensus is the norm in families.

> are you in that jungle of yours too long all by yourself? ( joke).

i came to the jungle to start a new model of the family based on natural
evolutionary principals. it's not pie in the sky idealism, i been refining for
many years now and learned a lot and have much to share to those who have
ears
or an open mind to hear.

i
> will support you, but it doesn't mean i find "family" particularly
> interesting or useful.

thanks for yer vote of support. if yer talkin about traditional hierarchical
family i totally agree, but i find consensual family not only interesting and
usefull but necessary for spiritual, mental, and physical well being and
growth. we are afterall social creatures.

it is certainly a distraction away from where i
> find more joy and meaning in life. my allegiance and energies are with
> the family i create amongst my friends and loved ones i choose. neil

traditional family is certainly a distraction for me as well, hence i have
escaped to the jungle, but now find it a bit lonely without the family spirit.
the plants and animals actually provide a sense of family so it could be worse
if i lived in the "concrete jungle". i am so thankful for living close to
nature, i wanna keep refining and share it with friends. aloha, f

Subject:
Re: The Whole Picture
Date:
Thu, 6 Jul 2000
From:
BARB

Family Schmambly, My family is whoever I happen to be with at the
moment....and best if they at least make an attempt at consciousness, love
and support. But in any case, I agree, all things are connected, this is
simply not the format to discuss all connected things.
Lovin yall,
Barbara

Subject:
Re: The Whole Picture
Date:
Thu, 06 Jul 2000
From:
Forest

hi ricky, you make a good point here, just remember that according to some
scientists the panda used to eat primarily meat and due to habitat change
evolved to eat mostly vegetarian. this shows an incredible adaptation tho it
took several generations to achieve no doubt.

i wonder tho, is it always necessary for evolution to occur over long periods
of time or could that change over time with things like genetic engineering
and such coming on the scene? and what about speeding up evolution
naturally
with spiritual disciplines? i bet that will stir up a hot debate.

i wonder how much the average chimp eats, since they are only 2 percent
different genetically than humans it might give an indication as to the
percent of protein that would be healthy. anybody know what percent protein
they are known to eat. as far as i know bonoboo chimps don't eat meat while
the other more studied variety does. i wonder what that means if they are
both
2 percent different than humans?

the main point i was tryin to make in the discussion on protein is that
perhaps we do not need a lotta protein to be muscularly pumped up. i believe
that animals including humans are capable of transmuting foods into
whatever
their body requires or needs, therefore it is not necessarily true that if our
brains are primarily fat we must consume the same type or amount of fats
to be
healthy. same with protein. i think it is more a matter of balanced natural
minerals(animal, plant, and/or rock dust that are the building blocks of life.
me thinks probably protein can be made from the essential minerals. cows
eat a
lotta grass and that's about it but somehow convert(transform, transmute)
that
grass to fat, protein, etc. isn't life amazing and mysterious. aloha, f

Ricky AZ wrote:
>
> Nutritional requirements and processing vary among species. The Panda
eats
> almost exclusively eucalyptus leaves and branches, a diet that would soon
> kill a human.

Subject:
Re: The Whole Picture
Date:
Thu, 06 Jul 2000
From:
Forest

gee barb, i still sense a little resentment from you in yer responses to
forest's comments.

is yer experience of whoever you happen to be with at the moment(family)
always fulfilling and feeling like a close knit tribal consensus family? if
it's not perfect why wouldn't you be interested in making it better just like
you seek refinement in diet?

if you agree all things are connected then why insist on isolating them? how
will that ever lead us to a oneness experience, or optimum wellness?

BARBSKEE@aol.com wrote:
>
> Family Schmambly, My family is whoever I happen to be with at the
> moment....and best if they at least make an attempt at consciousness,
love
> and support. But in any case, I agree, all things are connected, this is
> simply not the format to discuss all connected things.
> Lovin yall,
> Barbara

Subject:
Re: The energy shift
Date:
Thu, 6 Jul 2000
From:
BARB

Dear All:
I'll be gone on a painting trip for 10 days so you won't be hearing from me.
Honestly, I think I need a break from this list.
Love ya all, just frustrated with the niggly stuff that keeps interfering
with the flow of great communication and information.
Barb

Subject:
family issues
Date:
Thu, 6 Jul 2000
From:
Marlene

Forest said:

the fact that i am not young makes me want to explore it all the more to
figure out some refinements and perhaps find more joy and meaning in life
before i die. strange that you advise letting go of refinement of the
family
when to me it seems more crucial to our health than raw foods or part
raw.

Forest, I would be more than happy to delve into this area with you. I
have a lot of experience dealing w/ past family issues and counseling
others and can recommended some very excellent books to read. I will
leave it there as it is clear that this group is not set for these
issues. Feel free to e-mail me.

Marlene
_________________________________________

Subject:
Re: family issues
Date:
Thu, 06 Jul 2000
From:
Forest

Marlene wrote:
>
> Forest, I would be more than happy to delve into this area with you. I
> have a lot of experience dealing w/ past family issues and counseling
> others and can recommended some very excellent books to read. I will
> leave it there as it is clear that this group is not set for these
> issues. Feel free to e-mail me at piemaker@juno.com
>
> Marlene

marlene, thanks for your offer but i'm not looking for a counselor at the
moment, nor am i looking for dealing with past family issues so much as
healthy refinements of family. i'm looking for health conscious peers
interested in raw foods and love and support in a holistic peer group
exploration of ideas. i'm looking for folks who are not afaid of discussing
interrelated sensitive health issues in a non-threatening loving way. you say
it is clear this group is not set for these issues. if that's the case why do
so many discuss it besides me. i guess it would be great if we could all
agree, that's what consensus is, but for as many who feel family is not part
of the discussion here there are equal number who like me seem to think it is
relevant. i woulda quit awhile back on the family subject if i thought nobody
wanted to talk about it. i will only continue if others offer feedback, people
keep thinkin it's me feedin the fire but it's really the group. in a sense you
folks tryin to shut me up amaze me. you come to a site like this partly i'm
assuming for "family" or peergroup support and ideas and then when
someone
talks about family spirit you get spooked and wanna run away or send me on
my
way. fine, as soon as i'm the only one on a subject i'll quit. if you want to
delve into family or any health issue in private feel free to email me. aloha
f

Subject:
second thoughts
Date:
Fri, 07 Jul 2000
From:
Forest

hi folks, i been thinkin about my approach to sharing interrelated health
concepts on the list here and i decided "in the spirit of consensus" to not
discuss any topic that someone else on the list finds offensive or out of
order. my purpose is not to impose my thoughts on anyone in any way. i
merely
find them so important i can't help adding them to the mix sometimes. i see
now i have offended a couple women who are not interested in these topics
and
i guess i will back off unless there is a consensus on discussing a subject. i
pretty much stated my case anyway.

i probably won't be too active here anymore and will be looking elsewhere for
a more whole-istic site or perhaps i will some day start one. any out there
who wanna talk private on hot issues feel free to email. in a sense i feel we
are all free here to delete any subject or person who feels offensive which
means anyone can be free to choose how they interact on this list. however
it
appears that altho some may be offended by a subject their curiosity or
whatever causes them to "check it out". then they get offended or angry
cause
they don't agree or find it outta place.

i don't wanna force ideas on anyone, i never liked my father doin that to me
so please anybody let me know anytime i offend or do somethin you don't
approve and i will back off.

if i ever design a whole-istic list i will set it up and operate it with a
consensus of the twelve most active participants or someting like that. if i
feel we are too narrow in our focus i will appeal to the consensus of the
group for a more inclusive format. i can't do that here so i will refrain from
any topic that any other one finds offensive or outta place. in the spirit or
consensus and peace, f

Subject:
Re: [Fwd: short erl intro.]
Date:
Fri, 07 Jul 2000
From:
Forest

Underfog wrote:
>
> Wow, that is quite a lot of information. I am not sure where you want to go
> with this. Maybe if you had a specific question or comment.

underfog, thanks for your comments, as to where i wanna go with this. the
answer is to start a small model and then with the group effort start
another
and another like a cell dividing into independant self supporting
interconnected farms.

Subject:
Re: The Whole Picture
Date:
Fri, 07 Jul 2000
From:
Forest

bob wrote:
>
> I don't know what percentage protein a gorilla gets in its diet, but it
> does eat a huge amount of greens. All greens are very high in protein as
> a percentage of calories.

good point bob, similar to the one i made regarding cows eating grass and
gettin muscles, people keep thinkin if you wanna healthy brain you gotta eat
brain(extreem example), it keeps resurfacing as a concept but i think it is
flawed.
>
> Is this fair? I mean we do discuss all manner of health issues here.
> Should we censor meantal/spiritual health issues as being off-topic?

it looks like some women (and perhaps silent men) feel offended or off topic
so i guess i'll back off and look elsewhere, thanks for yer comments tho.
>
> Yes, he was a refined sugar addict, and I believe it was J.I. Rodale who
> wrote a book claiming that this is what unbalanced his mind.

another thing i heard that unbalanced hitler's mind was that he had
testosterone injections to beef up his manhood. aloha f

Subject:
Re: second thoughts
Date:
Sun, 9 Jul 2000
From:
tom

>forest wrote: hi folks, i been thinkin about my approach to sharing
interrelated health
>concepts on the list here and i decided "in the spirit of consensus" to not
>discuss any topic that someone else on the list finds offensive or out of
>order.

Forest, I agree with the women. I also think that you have dominated the
list over last couple of months and during that time the amount of quality
information about RAW FOODs on this list has plummeted. I believe that the
community is better served by keeping this a focused list on raw foods to
help people transition away from cooked foods.
>
>i probably won't be too active here anymore

I think you should start your own list. You seem very committed to creating
a more wide ranging list. Good luck with this and please let us know where
it is. About using the delete key, You have created more than just one
thread that people can delete if they want. You have changed the nature of
the list and in my opinion, not for the better.

>
>i don't wanna force ideas on anyone, i never liked my father doin that to me
>so please anybody let me know anytime i offend or do somethin you don't
>approve and i will back off.

Ahhh, Here's were you interest in family affairs comes in. I am not
interested in discussing family subjects on THIS list. Maybe on another
list, yes.

Speaking only for my self, Thank-you -tom

Subject:
Re: second thoughts
Date:
Sun, 09 Jul 2000
From:
Forest

tom wrote:
>
> Forest, I agree with the women. I also think that you have dominated the
> list over last couple of months and during that time the amount of quality
> information about RAW FOODs on this list has plummeted. I believe that the
> community is better served by keeping this a focused list on raw foods to
> help people transition away from cooked foods.

aloha tom, thanks for your thoughts on the subject, as i said, if there is one
who finds it inappropriate i will back off. i do sense from those women a
serious need for them to explore communication and family issues and that
is
why they had to leave or try to get rid of me. their anger and poor judgement
exposed them and they wanna blame me when over time they may learn
something
about themselves.

a couple thoughts tho that i like to make to yer comments here. for one
thing
i think the isolator type people here are gettin an above average control. in
my mind consensus is only practical and effective in small groups of 12 or
less. i am offering a consensus arrangement here that most consensus folks
find unworkable or unfair including me. this list has more than twelve people
and according to my agreement one individual can steer this list into any
agenda they prefer, therefore the dissenters can become the controlers in
this
model. in my experience this can create very poor or limiting arrangement. i
did agree to it so i better not complain too much, just a thought to consider.
if i weren't so into consensus i would go the the owner of this list and
suggest a majority rule vote on including more interrelated subject matter
and in my mind it would be for the good of all and probably over time enhance
all our lives to being more healthy. it no doubt would bring some other
valualble knowledge and people to the site.

another comment to the points you make above. you say i have dominated
the
list for the past two months. in my mind that is not true. it is not possible
to dominate this list. you have every opportunity to make comments and add
thoughts any time you want to on any subject that you find appropriate.

you say the quality of info on raw foods has plummeted, i disagree. the
whole
time i have been here there has been a steady flow of quality raw food dialog
and i feel i personally contributed a fair portion of it. the fact that other
subjects have come up (in my mind and several others) on the list simply
adds
holism to the site, in my mind an invaluable thing.

you go on to say that the raw community is better served by focusing on raw
only to help them transition away from cooked foods. my response is that
unless those people take a serious look at the psychological factors
(including family) to health they will always struggle to transition. so be it
if that's what you want.
>
> I think you should start your own list. You seem very committed to
creating
> a more wide ranging list. Good luck with this and please let us know where
> it is. About using the delete key, You have created more than just one
> thread that people can delete if they want. You have changed the nature of
> the list and in my opinion, not for the better.

thanks for your support here. i really sense you have some psychological
issues that you do not want to look at based on the comments you are
making to
me. you seem unwilling to change or look at the most crucial health issues
you
have.

> Ahhh, Here's were you interest in family affairs comes in. I am not
> interested in discussing family subjects on THIS list. Maybe on another
> list, yes.

yes, all of us have issues over family, your comments above make it look like
i'm the exception, at least i am willing to admit it and talk about it for the
benifit of all, while others will run and hide in some dialog on raw foods, or
tell me to get lost

> Speaking only for my self, Thank-you -tom

thankyou tom for speaking how you feel, f

Subject:
Re: Boycott the SF Expo (here, here!)
Date:
Tue, 11 Jul 2000
From:
"Buddha Bud"

members of raw life,

Judy wrote,
>The person who recommended a boycott obviously
>has some personal issues with NFL.

buddha bud wrote: I actually do not have a personal issue with NFL. I just do
not agree with
NFL's tactics and have taken the liberty and risk of expressing views that I
will be attacked for. In turn, I believe that many others of you secretly
share these same views for which I am getting resistance for.

Judy,
>If the person who recommended a boycott disagrees with NFL's business
>decisions and thinks he can do it better, then he should go out and DO IT
>BETTER.

I do not have to do it better because there are many people who already are.
Remember, I have already said within 2 posts that the Portland raw foods
festival, as well as the events put on by many other grassroots
organizations, reflect the ideal and the positive. Lets avoid wasting the
bandwidth of this discussion group by not go in circular arguments. In
retaliation, you may write back to drop this discussion thread in order to
conserve on bandwidth as well. I would agree because I believe that the
people who are on this list and are intelligent minded have already
benefited from the posts, however they may have interpreted them. Others
will merely react. Either way is fine.

Judy,
>With the energy that he uses to discredit NFL (while lacing it with Jesus
>and Jefferson quotes), he can put on an expo of his own.

I didn't use a jesus quote. I merely used an analogy. Jefferson, yes, I did
quote him. It is too bad you feel using intelligent and appropriate quotes
is considered lacing. What do you want people to do, stay silent if you do
not like what they have to say? No need to answer, the question is
rhetorical.

Secondly, I am not a he, but a she. I could only assume why you would
imagine that I was a he, whether is be a distaste towards men or a denial of
your own shortcomings. It is clear to me that some of you have very rigid
preconceived ideas that you don't want questioned or changed.

Mark,
>But I don't see that as a good reason to suggest that people boycott the
>event, unless you want the
>vendors to lose even more money. Is that your intention here?

We seem to make repeating ourselves a reoccurring event. In my last post I
said that there are plenty of opportunities for people in the raw food
movement to make money. Are you asking me to give step by step details on
how to make money with raw foods?

Let me get to the point.

It seems that the majority of responses I am getting on this list are
emotionally based. That is fine and dandy. However, please be conscious of
the fact that this is a mailing list just like countless others on the
internet. As people post messages it is somewhat impossible to include
everything within one single post, unless it becomes an incredibly long
document. Aware of this, intelligent discussions follow the idea that people
don't flame each other. Knowing that each post is a piece of a puzzle, and
maybe a part of an eventual solution, rather than the entire and complete
answer, we can question each other, support each other and even disagree
with each other without having to flame each other based upon our own
uncontrolled emotional irritability. That is the goal. It is obviously not
the reality.

Mark,
>To answer your question: yes, I do think that
>getting the whole story before attempting to damage somebody's business
>would show more responsibility on your part.

Then you should stop being a raw foodist. Do you tell people cooked food is
poison. We need scientific backing. It is not there. Like I have said
several times already, I eat raw foods and will continue to do so. There is
very little research and scientific fact to back it up. If you, or others,
go around saying not to eat cooked food because it is bad for you then you
are hurting the businesses in your area that cater to cooked food eaters
because of not having the whole story and being, as you put it,
irresponsible.

Mark,
>I am beginning to suspect that you have some unstated personal issues with
>the organizers of this expo.

Like I mentioned to Judy's response, I don't agree with the tactics of
certain selfish organizations. Many raw foodists complain that the cattle
industry is too greedy and pushes out propaganda, such as picture charts of
the 4 food groups, to grade schools. Let us wake up and smell the lemon,
some raw food organizations, people and groups and doing the same thing. If
we can see through the BS of raw foods we'll be better able to live with raw
foods throughout our lives instead of constantly getting on various
bandwagons, staying raw, backsliding, getting depressed, believing false
claims, and getting more depressed. We can naturally survive on raw foods,
but not with some of the false and bogus facts. There are good groups,
people and organizations in this world. Seek them out if you need them.

For the moment, I am through discussing this topic on raw life. I can
present all of the facts to this list and will continue to receive the
extremely rigid denial from people who are living in a mystical utopia.

Here are my suggestions for future discussion on raw life no matter what
the
topic.

1. don't flame. think before you write and attack people.
2. keep an open mind.
3. feel open to agree or disagree, knowing you won't be flamed like some
parent paddling their child
4. support each other
5. question what you hear
6. love yourself and others
7. have fun with it and don't take it too serious
8. know when to back off. discussions are about communication, not control.

bye for now,
raw4all
__________________________________________________________

Subject:
how did all this maddness start?
Date:
Sat, 15 Jul 2000
From:
Forest

attuner wrote:

i feel this is true because what i have read and seen about
> tribes who live in jungles or other habitats where there is plenty raw and
> where they have been so called untouched by modern civilization, and
maybe
> following a lifestyle 10's of thousands of years old, seem to have the
> campfires burning and (some?) food cooked. white society didn't introduce
> this to these "primitive" peoples.

another reason cooked may have come on the scene in tropical jungle places
is
the fact that man/woman used fire as a protection at nite from the wild
animals and being naturally curious to try new things tried experimenting
with
fire foods. i suspect that during draughts or famines when food was scarce
natives found that some less desireable foods were more palatable when
cooked
and thus started a cooked food routine. f

Subject:
Instinctive Living
Date:
Sat, 15 Jul 2000
From:
Roman

Hello all,

New raw food oriented website, Check it out at http://www.instinctive-
living.com

Subject:
RE: forest@wics.net
Date:
Wed, 19 Jul 2000
From:
"Shari V"

Dear Forest; I am acquainted with a friend of yours, Norm. I talked with
him about you after I was so upset about all the crap that was going on with
the raw list.

I hate being mad at someone I've never met in person and Norm assured me
you
are in fact a very nice guy. I really like Norm and if you two are friends
I figure you must be an okay guy. I am truly am sorry about blowing up to
you about the family issues. I thought you meant like mom & dad issues
when
in fact you meant tribal family. Am I right?

When my kids were in middle school I heard a guy say that family fell apart
with the advent of a piece of aluminum. I thought what the happy heck is he
talking about. TV dinners. Took the family away from the table and Madison
Avenue and advertising took over from there. I have a whole theory about
family, blood and otherwise, and advertising and food. I may even have a
book in my head, but probably can't prove any of it or back it up with hard
facts.

Please accept my humble apology and let's start over.

Hi! I'm Shari and I live in Everett, Washington and have been dabbling in
raw food for about 6 years. I became 99% in January of this year and am
enjoying it very much. There are so many things that raw food has affected
I could go on for pages, but right now I need to close so I can keep
cleaning the closet out! I'm become obsessed with TOO MUCH STUFF and how
to
get rid of it. I'm giving most of it away. I'm finally able to let loose
of some things I've had for 15 years and haven't even looked at!

Aloha - Shari

Subject:
forest rambling raw dogs, raw huWoman, in raw nature
Date:
Fri, 28 Jul 2000
From:
Forest

forest writes: been following all the dialog on raw dogs and find it rather
fascinating where
people focus the energies. i live on the same land with a dog owner right now,
i grew up sleeping under the coffee table with our house dog and remember
how
long we all mourned when it died at 16 years after growing up with us kids. i
went hunting in the woods nearby my adolescent homeland as a young boy
and man
and had what seemed like somewhat psychic connection with one special
hunting
dog. at a fairly early age in life i started to feel how important it was to
be natual and free in nature and to learn to allow that more and more for the
other life forms out there. i had had many other pets all my life, my sister
and i were into it and had the local neighborhood zoo. at some point the idea
of keeping the animals in cages or chained up or in the house started to
bother me. i wanted to be free to be in nature, but wasn't allowing it for the
pets. i hunted and ate wild meat. one day i stopped doing that(a whole nuther
story in itself), and killing animals for pet food so my pets could live
seemed hypocritical and more and more couldn't deal with caging, restraining,
controlling, or killing animals.

so anyway, i'm thinkin how the families of today have less bonding
opportunities due to the unnatural environments and the demand for money.
it
is sad to see how many people today have only their pets to bond with at the
end of hard day and it is a special bonding i know. i guess i am too stubborn
an idealist but i sense so many on this list are longing for a raw nature
lifestyle but money matters get in the way. and how much some of us spend
on
our pets care and food is almost like having another child in the family
especially with the raw exotic treats. and somewhere in the world huWoman
babies are starving for lack of food. well please don't take this the wrong
way but for some of ya'll out there without pets who might be thinkin they
are
out of the scene by not having one, just remember whenever you want some
bonding and it ain't nowhere to be found, rememeber not far away is a park
or
wild nature place where we can bond with the wild raw animal nature and it
will feed us with bonding energy like the plants and earth(and we don't have
to feed it ). just sit down in a comfortable spot and sit quiet and breathe
deep and or walk slowly along a path and feel the bonding with nature fill the
empty space that living in city hussle and bussle has tried to deny us and
save some money and get outta there back to nature and get and grow more
raw.
aloha, f

Subject:
Re: salt
Date:
Sat, 29 Jul 2000
From:
Forest

marlene, for years i have been pondering the use of rock dust minerals
including salt. i have seen nature shows that document animals traveling
great
distances to use minerals from rock dust, etc. dead doctors don't lie also
made some good points for rock minerals. i think it is important that they be
in a colloidial form, one that makes it suspendable in water. the quantity
used is also important. if we get above the normal salt level of body fluids,
imbalances will start to occur no doubt. still it is no doubt possible to get
all the same minerals from quality organic produce, it's just gonna take a
lotta knowledge of the source and constant monitoring to make sure it's all
in
balance no matter what the source. hope i can learn to do all that someday.
it's easy to give up sometimes when energy is low or there is lack of support.
aloha, f

ps. in regards to bragg's liquid aminos, keep in mind that since it is made
from inorganic soybeans no doubt it contains genetically modified soybeans
since i heard awhile back that all non-organic soybeans are GM these days
and
have been for awhile.

Marlene wrote:

> Any opinions, yeh or ney on EARTH SALT??? or salt in general?? On
> liquid aminos??? Let me hear from you.

Subject:
Re: Inorganic Minerals
Date:
Wed, 02 Aug 2000
From:
Forest

thanks for the tc fry article, let's not forget that tc fry died at a fairly
early age. i see his arguments have some merit, but a lotta what he is
arguing
implys that inorganic minerals are the cause of the problems. if they are
outta balance that will be no doubt true as with salt, edema and water
retention. however inorganic salt may be a lifesaver to someone extreemly
low
in sodium in body fluids. our bodies fluid is normally about as salty as sea
water.

also the diet of some of those folks(even raw folks) may inhibit the proper
absorbsion of minerals(whether organic or inorganic) in the body and cause
them to settle in unhealthy regions of the body(just as junk food does). i
suspect tho i have no hard evidence that colloidial inorganic minerals in some
cases may be ok provided one is aware of the balances in the body and also
on
a fairly healthy raw food diet.

animals in nature do that and i sense in some cases it may be essential to
their good health. why would they do it otherwise if there is plenty of grass
and organic food nearby. tc fry had a lotta dogma that i find questionable,
but i do like his writings, just would hesitate to call it the final say on
the matter.

the idea of ironclad rules in our lives i always question. he says it's ok for
inorganic water, air, and sunshine but not rock dust. how extensive is the
research on this stuff, do we just take the word of some health guru who
died
early and leave it at that? i still have seen no conclusive evidence to
disregard inorganic colloidial minerals as a potential usefull health
balancer. please come up with more research before condemming something,
it
can give the raw movement a bad name or alienate some from further
investigation. aloha f

TROMPAJO wrote:
>
> Thank you, T.C. You live on in our hearts, and your words continue to
> educate, enlighten and delight us.

Subject:
Re: GM and Braggs
Date:
Mon, 7 Aug 2000
From:
Bob

Forest said,

> inorganic salt may be a lifesaver to someone extreemly low
>in sodium in body fluids. our bodies fluid is normally about as salty as
sea water.

While inorganic sodium might "save someone's life" who was extremely
deprived of sodium, most of us here are probably more concerned with
optimizing our lives than just barely surviving. In that context,
organic sodium, as in raw celery or spinach, would be a better choice
than salt.

>inorganic water, air, and sunshine but not rock dust. how extensive is
the
>research on this stuff, do we just take the word of some health guru who
died
>early and leave it at that?

I don't know the original source of this research, but it certainly makes
sense to me that for humans fruits and vegetables are a lot more
palatable than rock dust, while for plants the opposite is true. Any
animal that eats dirt does it only in extreme situations where it is not
getting what it needs from its deficient food supply. It would prefer to
get its minerals in organic form whenever available.

Besides, how long do you think you could live on rock dust or colloidal
minerals alone? Not very long. I think you'd survive longer on nothing
at all.

Bob

Subject:
Re: rawlife-digest V1 #315
Date:
Wed, 09 Aug 2000
From:
Forest
>
> TROMPAJO wrote:

> Sorry I didn't get back to this sooner Forest, I get the list in digest
> form, and often don't get them all read for a while.

me too.
>
> You commented "i still have seen no conclusive evidence to disregard
> inorganic colloidial minerals as a potential usefull health balancer. please
> come up with more research before condemming something, it can give the
raw
> movement a bad name or alienate some from further investigation."
>
> I wasn't condemning anything, I was submitting T.C.'s article for
> everyone's consideration.

thanks, sorry if i sounded over critical, just wanted to add some thoughts.
>
> As far as providing more research, did you notice in the article that
> T.C. cites research on controlled double blind studies at Creighton
> University?

yes i read the whole email, however sometimes a test may not take all things
into consideration or they may use one variety of calcium powder while
another
may have different results. they may also overlook the diet influences in a
test like that. how would a similar test do on a group of raw fooders
carefully monitoring their mineral balances. often tests are too short or too
short sighted to get a clear picture.
>
> He also states that The New England Journal of Medicine in its issue of
> January 22, 1987 detailed a research, also a double blind experiment,
wherein
> a control group received 2,000 milligrams daily of calcium carbonate. The
> post menopausal women continued to lose bone mass, despite the
supplements.

yes, but what about how their diet influences their use or absorption of
minerals. lots of oil and mucus in the body of a raw fooder or s.a.d. would
make absorption difficult.
>
> A lot of things are said on this list that are not backed up by research.
> You yourself said in your post "i suspect tho i have no hard evidence that
> colloidial inorganic minerals in some cases may be ok provided one is aware
> of the balances in the body and also on a fairly healthy raw food diet". So I
> could turn around and ask you to please come up with more research
before
> making such a statement.

i am only giving my feelings or ideas or thoughts on a subject and they may
change over time as i read others thoughts. i will over time come up with
more
evidence to support the theories i believe in or modify or change them
completely, but that doesn't prevent me from questioning others theories or
trying to add to others theories.
>
> If expressing one's thoughts and personal experiences is going to give
> the raw movement a bad name and alienate some from further
investigation,
> then the movement is too weak to survive anyway. I should hope that's not
the
> case.

sorry if i gave the impression that sharing yer thoughts was a problem, i just
wanted to add my two cents worth to round out the discussion.
>
> T.C.'s logic was impeccable, and the way he expressed himself was
beyond
> compare, as far as I'm concerned. I too disagreed with some of the things
he
> said. But agreeing or disagreeing, I loved the way he said them.

i agree tc fry was a master at simple, easy to understand clear
communication.
>
> The fact that T.C. "died early" is totally irrelevant, don't you think?
> It has no bearing on the validity of his knowledge. Let me give one small
> example to show what I mean: T.C. said "There is more operational savvy in
a
> single one of our cells, than in all the combined intellects of the world."
> Would you argue with that statement? I would not, nor have I ever seen it
put
> more beautifully and succinctly. That statement would still be true, even if
> T.C. had died at 20 years of age from overdosing on Twinkies.

i agree with yer general point here, nobody is perfect, i was merely trying to
point out the old sayin, "physician heal thyself" as an important
consideration when looking into someone's theories. at some point to be true
to ourselves and others we need to walk our talk and i would use that
concept
as *part* of my guideline in exploring others theories.
>
> I think T.C.'s greatest "fault" was one we all share: he was only human.
> Maybe he didn't practice what he preached. If so, that would make him a
> hypocrite, but it wouldn't turn the truths he spoke into lies. It's been
> said, Truth is Truth, no matter who possesses it -- a beggar or a king. In
> other words, truth exists independently of the person speaking it.

there may be no absolute truth but more partial truth of the moment until it
is added onto and modified to be more infallible or all inclusive. yes i agree
tho we are all human and less than perfect.
>
> I appreciated your reply to my post, Forest. I think it's comments like
> yours that keep the list interesting and alive. Wasn't it Einstein who said
> "when everyone is thinking alike, no one is thinking"?

thanks ronn, i like yer thoughts also and look forward to more. aloha and
peace, f

Subject:
fruits and sugar and teeth
Date:
Wed, 09 Aug 2000
From:
Forest

Vicky wrote:
>
> > >How can you eat this much??????
> > >Arnt you worried about too much sugar?? I used
> > >to get sick on eating 800 or 900 grams of watermelon???

i think one can eat lots of juicey fruits on a hot day and do fine. everything
we put in our body the body tries to convert to simple sugars to digest. it
seems to me we are doing our body a favor and conserving digestive energy
by
eating sugar foods. just be careful of combining with starches or too much
nuts.
> > >
> > >You must have a stomach of iron!!

i don't find that level of consumption unusual, altho i think modern man and
woman eat more food than necessary due to oral fixations relating to early
childhood trauma due to unnatural lifestyles of most of our parents. lack of
healthy bonding with parents and latter bonding to the earth are missing for
most of us all our life. no wonder we overeat a bit.
>
> I cant eat that much fruit because it is too much sugar for my body!!
> I have done permanent damage to my teeth from too much sugar(from
> fruit),
> (and acid fruit, oranges etc, all grown well, organically and tree
> ripened)
> I urge everyone with predominantly fruit diets to be CAREFULL!!

i agree it's good to be careful of sugar with teeth problems but i am not
convinced the teeth problems originated with eating fruits. most peridontal
disease stems from early childhood processed sugar and starch
combinations and
later when we try to improve the quality of the sugar we get a reaction which
many attribute to the fruit when in my mind it is from starting the problem
early on processed foods. many continue processed foods to prevent the
teeth
from having problems but heavier foods create more tooth problems on the
long
term. i eat a lotta fruit and have poor teeth so i tend to avoid certain
acidic fruits like citrus or when i do eat them i rinse the mouth with calcium
magnesium powder and then spit it out to nuetralize the acidic condition in
the mouth. anyway just another viewpoint from this ones limited perspective.
aloha, f

Subject:
dust in the wind, all we are is dust in the wind
Date:
Thu, 10 Aug 2000
From:
Forest

Bob wrote:
>
> While inorganic sodium might "save someone's life" who was extremely
> deprived of sodium, most of us here are probably more concerned with
> optimizing our lives than just barely surviving. In that context,
> organic sodium, as in raw celery or spinach, would be a better choice
> than salt.
>
> I don't know the original source of this research, but it certainly makes
> sense to me that for humans fruits and vegetables are a lot more
> palatable than rock dust, while for plants the opposite is true.

why do you think some life forms can use rock dust while others it is not
possible or healthy.

Any
> animal that eats dirt does it only in extreme situations where it is not
> getting what it needs from its deficient food supply.

what evidence do you use to support this theory?

It would prefer to
> get its minerals in organic form whenever available.

have you had discussions with animals on the subject? how do you know what
motivates animals to make decisions?
>
> Besides, how long do you think you could live on rock dust or colloidal
> minerals alone? Not very long. I think you'd survive longer on nothing
> at all.

i didn't propose eating rock minerals alone, just curious what evidence there
is to prove it unhealthy.

Subject:
Re: dust in the wind, all we are is dust in the wind
Date:
Fri, 11 Aug 2000
From:
Bob

Forest wrote,

>why do you think some life forms can use rock dust while others it is
not
>possible or healthy.

Different genetics. For some life forms one item is food while for
another it is poison. One life form produces certain type of digestive
enzymes while another produces other enzymes with different capabilities.

>> Any
>> animal that eats dirt does it only in extreme situations where it is
not
>> getting what it needs from its deficient food supply.
>
>what evidence do you use to support this theory?

Most any hygienic author or livestock farmer will state this. If animals
could be raised on rock dust instead of feed grains, don't you think the
livestock farmers would want to save money and just use rock dust instead
of feed grains?

It is well-known in the health food supplement business that for humans
inorganic minerals are poorly "absorbed" versus organically chelated
mineral supplements.

>have you had discussions with animals on the subject? how do you know
what
>motivates animals to make decisions?

All you have to do is watch them. You don't need to know what motivates
them in order to observe their preferences.

>i didn't propose eating rock minerals alone, just curious what evidence
there
>is to prove it unhealthy.

Ingesting anything that the body has no use for is draining to the body's
energies at a minimum (if it is not outright poisonous) because of the
energy needed to push it through the digestive tubes to get rid of it.

Bob

Subject:
Re: dust in the wind, all we are is dust in the wind
Date:
Fri, 11 Aug 2000
From:
Forest

Bob wrote:
>
> Different genetics. For some life forms one item is food while for
> another it is poison. One life form produces certain type of digestive
> enzymes while another produces other enzymes with different capabilities.

good point, but i still question if some percent of rock dust in huWomans is
ok and perhaps even healthy.

> Most any hygienic author or livestock farmer will state this. If animals
> could be raised on rock dust instead of feed grains, don't you think the
> livestock farmers would want to save money and just use rock dust
instead
> of feed grains?

well, most farmers do use some percent of rock minerals, perhaps there is a
happy healthy medium. also in "dead doctors don't lie" the author made
reference to unhealthy animals until they were supplemented with rock
minerals.
>
> It is well-known in the health food supplement business that for humans
> inorganic minerals are poorly "absorbed" versus organically chelated
> mineral supplements.

well there sure are a lotta rock minerals in the health food stores too.
>
> All you have to do is watch them. You don't need to know what motivates
> them in order to observe their preferences.

yes, i agree, i watch them, i see they have plenty of organic food and they
still eat rock dust and i wonder why?

> Ingesting anything that the body has no use for is draining to the body's
> energies at a minimum (if it is not outright poisonous) because of the
> energy needed to push it through the digestive tubes to get rid of it.

i agree ingesting anything the body has no use for is draining, i just see no
conclusive evidence that proves to me that rock dust(in some carefully
balanced form) is bad for the body in all cases.

Subject:
Re: dust in the wind, all we are is dust in the wind
Date:
Sat, 12 Aug 2000
From:
Bob

Forest wrote:

>good point, but i still question if some percent of rock dust in
huWomans is
>ok and perhaps even healthy.

How could it ever be superior to real food?

>well, most farmers do use some percent of rock minerals, perhaps there
is a
>happy healthy medium. also in "dead doctors don't lie" the author made
>reference to unhealthy animals until they were supplemented with rock
minerals.

The same minerals contained within food always work better. Many studies
have been done with humans on that and probably other animals as well.

Sometimes livestock farmers use concrete dust and other rocks just to
fatten up the animals faster for slaughter. They don't really care about
the animals' health. They just want a heavier animal within a certain
amount of time. It only has to be "healthy" enough to avoid getting
yanked from the assembly line at the slaughterhouse by the USDA
"inspectors."

>well there sure are a lotta rock minerals in the health food stores too.

Yes, because they're cheap to make, and a lot of consumers don't know any
better, so why not rip them off? It's easy money. The "Dead Doctors"
tape made lots of money for the promoters. I must have received a dozen
copies of it from various pushers.

He spends a lot of time discussing how important mineral balance is and
then offers no way to determine just what your balance currently is, nor
does he explain why his products don't just upset a delicate balance that
may already exist in your body. It's just cheap promotional hype.

>yes, i agree, i watch them, i see they have plenty of organic food and
they
>still eat rock dust and i wonder why?

Because the minerals they need are not contained in their food.
"Organic" food can only supply what's in the soil to begin with. If the
growers aren't supplementing their soils with rock powders, the soils get
depleted, and the people or animals that eat the food from that soil get
depleted too.

>i agree ingesting anything the body has no use for is draining, i just
see no
>conclusive evidence that proves to me that rock dust(in some carefully
>balanced form) is bad for the body in all cases.

There is no known way to carefully balance minerals by hand. There are
too many dependency factors involved. That's the job of plants and
animals, not chemists in white coats. Best to feed your plants with
inorganic mineral supplements and then eat the plants. That's what
nature intended.

>that one percent could be heavy metals like lead, mercury, etc. i just
don't
>know who to believe? f

Then double distill it or triple distill it. Every time through you will
remove 99% of the impurities you have left. After double distilling, it
will be 99.99% pure. Triple would give you 99.9999%. Perfection is
impossible on this Earth plane. Even if you drink no water, as I usually
do (don't), the plants you eat could have become contaminated from the
air or soil they were grown in. And your lungs could become contaminated
by air pollution. At some point, you've just got to do the best you can
and not worry about it.

Subject:
Re: dust in the wind, all we are is dust in the wind
Date:
Mon, 14 Aug 2000
From:
Forest

Bob wrote:
>
> How could it(rock dust) ever be superior to real food?

not sayin superior, just not sure it is bad or of no use.
>
> The same minerals contained within food always work better. Many studies
> have been done with humans on that and probably other animals as well.

i thought it was interesting that the dead doctor guy was a vet before being
a
doctor, his background seemed to have some interesting observations.
>
> Yes, because they're cheap to make, and a lot of consumers don't know
any
> better, so why not rip them off? It's easy money. The "Dead Doctors"
> tape made lots of money for the promoters. I must have received a dozen
> copies of it from various pushers.

just cause they are cheap to make doesn't necessarily mean they are of no
use
or bad for us.
>
> He spends a lot of time discussing how important mineral balance is and
> then offers no way to determine just what your balance currently is, nor
> does he explain why his products don't just upset a delicate balance that
> may already exist in your body. It's just cheap promotional hype.

maybe so, i just still lack conclusive evidence.
>
> Because the minerals they need are not contained in their food.
> "Organic" food can only supply what's in the soil to begin with. If the
> growers aren't supplementing their soils with rock powders, the soils get
> depleted, and the people or animals that eat the food from that soil get
> depleted too.

i can see how that could be the case, but i am not convinced that it always is.
>
> There is no known way to carefully balance minerals by hand.

well based on the nature shows i have seen of animals in the wild using rock
dust, i suspect that they may know something we don't.

There are
> too many dependency factors involved. That's the job of plants and
> animals, not chemists in white coats. Best to feed your plants with
> inorganic mineral supplements and then eat the plants. That's what
> nature intended.

your argument of doing what is natural is exactly why i question your
conclusions.
>
> >that one percent could be heavy metals like lead, mercury, etc. i just
> don't
> >know who to believe? f
>
> Then double distill it or triple distill it. Every time through you will
> remove 99% of the impurities you have left. After double distilling, it
> will be 99.99% pure. Triple would give you 99.9999%. Perfection is
> impossible on this Earth plane. Even if you drink no water, as I usually
> do (don't), the plants you eat could have become contaminated from the
> air or soil they were grown in. And your lungs could become contaminated
> by air pollution. At some point, you've just got to do the best you can
> and not worry about it.

i am just looking for a simple efficient water filter. i suspect that one
percent tho it sounds small can be large in terms of some elements in the
body.
>

Subject:
Re: Hydroponics
Date:
Tue, 15 Aug 2000
From:
Forest

bob, thanks for the interesting article, there is much i need to learn and
understand about mineral balances and i appreciate these type articles for
ideas. in relation to hydroponics i still say there is a healthy natural way
to do it. the oceans and rivers and lakes support a huge diverse population of
live forms. also there are plants that grow on what they get outta the air.

> Bob wrote:
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Fwd: Minerals in Food
>
> by Allan Balliett
>
> 28 December 1999 13:58 UTC
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject:
Re: Hydroponics
Date:
Wed, 16 Aug 2000
From:
Bob

Forest,

>bob, thanks for the interesting article, there is much i need to learn and
>understand about mineral balances and i appreciate these type articles for
>ideas. in relation to hydroponics i still say there is a healthy natural way
>to do it. the oceans and rivers and lakes support a huge diverse population
of
>live forms. also there are plants that grow on what they get outta the air.

You and I have something in common -- we're both stubborn cusses.

Bob

Subject:
Re: Hydroponics
Date:
Wed, 16 Aug 2000
From:
Forest

> Bob wrote:

> You and I have something in common -- we're both stubborn cusses.

yes, i did notice that, i think some degree of stubbornness is healthy, it
seems to help us maintain a footing in an everchanging world. i have been
accused by many as being too stubborn, i hope i have enough degree of
balance
to stay open to new ideas. i enjoy some of our stubbornminded dialogs, at
least we are not lashing out at each other saying those raw food folks don't
have a clue. aloha and peace, f

Subject:
Re: Food grade peroxide
Date:
Wed, 16 Aug 2000
From:
Forest

another thing about hydrogen peroxide to be careful of. a friend of mine a
few
years ago was telling me about food grade peroxide and was so excited about
it
he offered to share a sample of his stash with me to try out. so i agreed and
he put some in a bottle for me to take home.

i got home and tried it a couple times and then forgot about it for awhile
until one day a few weeks later i came into my house on an errand and sat
down
by my bed and started to look for something when there suddenly came a
loud
bang and i felt my arm sting. i heard hard pieces of glass flying all around
me.

it took awhile to realize what had happened and how lucky i was to escape
with only a minor wound on my arm. what happened is the bottle of hydrogen
peroxide was in was a clear glass soda bottle with a screw top metal lid. what
happened is the lite activated some chemical process which pressurized the
bottle to the point where it exploded and let glass schrapnel fly. my head was
about three feet from the bottle when it blew up. please avoid this in yer
experiments with hydrogen peroxide. f

Tom wrote:
>
> When I said you could buy "food grade" peroxide at drug store. . .get it
> from the
> pharmacy. . .and tell them what you need. Don't buy it off the shelf . . .

Subject:
Re: Make Up face
Date:
Wed, 16 Aug 2000
From:
Forest

TSingle wrote:
>
> reminds me of when i met dr. ann i thought she was sunburned but i was
told
> she was just using beet juice on her face! taran

i guess it's cool if people put decorations of natural healthy colors on their
faces and bodies, i like to do that at halloween sometimes and costume
parties.

but ya know there's something sexy and beautiful to me to see a woman (or
man
for that matter} who has a healthy natural unmanicured clean body and face.
even if it is aging and starting to wrinkle a little, if the people live a
simple natural life i think they maintain some unencumbered form of natural
beauty. i remember one time getting turned on in the garden working with a
woman who had a dirty face with sweat dripping off her nose. i would much
rather see that than some camophlauged look. i guess even in the natural
world, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. aloha, f

Subject:
Re: distilled water
Date:
Thu, 17 Aug 2000
From:
Forest

attuner wrote:
>
> c'mon peter - rain water does not get cooked. if someone uses a solar still
> i can then understand why it would be like rainwater. but we are talking
> about using electricity(another deadening agent when you consider the
> emf's) to boil the water first. i am afraid god just doesn't do that in his
> infinite wisdom when rain is made.

hi attuner, you seem to be in a somewhat grumpy mood today, cheer up. that
electricity thing god has a lot to do with, me thinks everything is
electrical. don't forget the thunder and lightening as god plays with
electicity and distilled rain.

only man in his stupidity would do the
> cooked water thing to make distilled and "ideas" such as these created the
> fall in the first place.

gee, aren't you a man, are we all equally stupid, or is it a matter of degrees
for each one of us, and what about woman? :-) i understand one can bring
life
back into distilled water by putting in sunshine, adding some kind of crystals
to the water, or wheat grass, i guess there's more i'm forgettin.

why don't we just leave the naturalness of water
> alone? just collect rain water? becos we are either lazy or stupid.

i wouldn't trust today's rainwater too much due to all the air pollutants.

Subject:
Re: distilled water
Date:
Thu, 17 Aug 2000
From:
Forest

attuner wrote:
>
> ya still don't get it- it's boiled water for cryin out loud. why do raw
> fooders insist on uncooked for food, but all of a sudden, okay, water
> doesn't seem to matter. dumb. neil

i think we are all just too dumb, must be all that cooked water that made us
that way. :-)

really tho attuner, i think we are all just concerned how to get the
pollutants out of the water and it looks like distilling is one of the methods
that works to one degree or another. i would rather drink small(i don't drink
water much) amounts of cooked water than drink water that has lead,
mercury,
bacteria, chlorine, etc. i really don't think heating the water is as bad as
you make it sound, especially if we add some life back into it after.

i heard distilled water can leach minerals from the body if not suplementing
some when drinking, any thoughts on that anyone?

Subject:
Re: distilled water
Date:
Fri, 18 Aug 2000
From:
Bob

Peter,

>Hi Bob and thanks for all the good information.
>Now that Robin provided us some technical info on distilled water, we might
>just have to cut down on the water. Raw foods might just give us enough
>liquid or should we do more juicing?

Since you asked...

The information posted is controversial to say the least. I was aware of it
before it was posted here. I
don't believe everything I read. I still do not see distilled water as being
harmful. It is my preferred
drinking water.

There are also those who say that distilled water can "enlivened" or
"structured" by leaving it in sunlight
for 10 minutes or more, or by putting magnets under it (I do the latter but
don't know whether it makes
any difference), or by adding a quartz crystal to the container that gives off
certain "vibes" that are
supposed to be beneficial. Some say that agitating the distilled water by
stirring it back forth perks it up.
I don't know whether any of these claims are accurate.

What I have noticed is that my distilled water "tastes" better if I let it sit out
for a day or more in an open
container before drinking it, so I do that. I presume this is because it allows
air (and oxygen) to dissolve
back into the water that were removed in the distilling process. Before our
rainwater became polluted
with toxic air pollution, aerating sun-distilled water as it fell to earth was
perhaps Nature's way of
"reinvigorating" it.

On an all-raw diet, little or no water should be necessary anyway unless you
are doing a lot of sweating
(aerobics, very hot weather) or eating a lot of concentrated, water-deficient
foods, such as nuts, seeds,
and grains.

I am drinking no juice and no water (except when I fast) on a 100% raw diet,
and I produce upwards of
1 gallon of urine daily, just from the water content of my foods alone.

To me this water debate is a tempest in a teapot. Auto exhaust fumes,
toxic home and work cleaning
chemicals, and the poor quality of our food supply these days are of much
greater concern to me than
whether or not the little water I drink has been recently "cooked." I only wish
that were the most
important thing on my mind.

If you are overweight and need to lose weight, drinking a lot of water can be
very helpful. It will help
dilute the toxins your body so that they can be expeditiously eliminated and
fill up your stomach to
reduce "hunger" pangs. It would also be beneficial if you are constipated to
lubricate the intestinal tract.

Otherwise, on a maintenance all-raw diet, I think there is a danger from
drinking much water of any
kind, whether distilled, RO'd, spring, rain, or filtered. That is that it dilutes
your digestive secretions
and makes your food harder to digest. I think this would be the case even
for water drunk between
meals or in the morning (the best time to drink it if you are going to)
because our small intestines are still
working on the food long after the stomach has finished with it. I would
suspect that adding water to the
mix would hinder that digestive process.

Rex Harrill, our "token" farmer, who has posted to this list in the past, says
that the purer the water fed
to livestock (and by this he means the least mineral content, as close to
distilled as possible), the healthier
the animals are.

As for the Hunzas, anything and everything they did has been variously
attributed to their longevity,
which was clearly the sum of many factors. One thing about them not often
mentioned is that they
perforce fasted for 3-4 weeks every spring. Their winter food supplies
would run out before their new
crop production could get underway, so they fasted. It seems to me that
this would have had more
impact on their health than any trace minerals in their water. The mineral-
rich water would, however,
have a much greater impact on the health of the crops they grew and which
then in turn would indirectly
contribute to the health of the people who ate those crops.

Oh, and BTW, note that Bragg and Walker, who advocated distilled water,
outlived any of the gurus
advocating other types of purified water, FWIW.

>My distiller makes 1 gallon every 6 hours and has post carbon filter and
that is it.
My distiller has the same specs. Try adding a timer between it and the
electrical outlet to shut it off a little
sooner.

>I have carbon filter ahead of the house water, but that is only good for
>taking out chlorine.

My Micro-Pure prefiltering system removes quite a few minerals too (from
about 150ppm to about
25ppm, if I remember correctly). I use that water to rinse too-dirty veggies
and to feed my distiller.

Quoting Dr. Rona:
>Fasting using distilled water can be dangerous because of the
>rapid loss of electrolytes (sodium, potassium, chloride) and trace
>minerals like magnesium, deficiencies of which can cause heart beat
>irregularities and high blood pressure.

I have fasted up to 21 days on distilled water with no such problems. I know
people who have fasted
longer -- over 40 days. However, when I fast I seldom drink more than a
gallon of water a day. Some
days I don't drink or eat anything.

>Cooking foods in distilled water
>pulls the minerals out of them and lowers their nutrient value."

Same goes for cooking foods in any other kind of water. Cooking food is bad
news.

>I opened my eyes because about two years ago I started hearing from
>long-term distilled water drinkers who had been consuming only distilled
>water and who had developed troubles with their hair either thinning or
>falling out in clumps. I've subsequently learned that hair loss is a
>condition often associated with various mineral deficiencies.
Caused by the mineral deficiencies of most of our food supply these days.
The amount of minerals in
even "mineral-rich" water is a tiny, insignificant fraction of the amount of
minerals we get, or should get,
from our foods.

Bob

Subject:
Re: distilled water
Date:
Wed, 23 Aug 2000
From:
Forest

i was thinkin maybe this debate could be eased up a bit by just realizing that
most surface water on the earth has life "in" it rather than being alive
itself. some of the life in water is potentially harmfull(certain bacteria,
disease carrying pathogens, etc.) other life in water may be ok or even
benificial. or perhaps its the energy in the water we are talkin about like
sunshine, magnetism, etc. aloha, f

attuner wrote:
>
> can you please tell me how the "intelligence" ( read that life) of an
> oxygen knows to combine with two hydrogen to form this magical
substance??

well maybe it is intelligence, maybe it is the laws of nature, maybe they both
are the same, maybe all objects we percieve as dead are actually alive in
some
way different than us, i have actually meditated on that possibility a few
times, however if that's true then cooked food is alive.

> how does any atom "know" what to combine with to form molecules of
"LIFE"!!!??

good question, i'm sure there is a scientific answer to that question relating
to bonds and eletrical charge, but the same could be said for "live" huWoMan
relationships. :-)

> distilled is classified as sterile water. yes, sterile is certainly
> dead.

according to yer line of thinking one could question that.

water that is snow melted away from civilization and hopefully
> pollutants and microorganisms, is definitely livelier in that at the very
> least, it runs along the earth's surface and receives biomagnetic energy.
neil

it probably already has some form of biomagnetic energy just from the
atoms
spinning around in the molecule, even water in the air near the earth no doubt
has some degree or form of biomagnetic energy. isn't there a scientific
theory
that all matter affects other matter.

Subject:
How to make another person be monogamous and/or
polygamous.
Date:
Thu, 24 Aug 2000
From:
BERNARR

Judy writes that her boyfriend of 1 year, eats a S.A.D. diet. She
writes that she thought he was monogamous but she has learned that he is
polygamous. She wants to know if raw food eating will change a man from
polygamous to monogamous?
There are many reasons other than just diet that one chooses to be
monogamous
and/or polygamous.
If one's boyfriend and/or husband or one's girlfriend and/or wife chooses to
be monogamous and/or polygamous, it is that person's right to choose to do
so.
Each person's respective anatomy and physiology belongs to that particular.
individual. Each person has the right to do as one so chooses to do so with
one's own person, space and property. No other person has the right to
forcefully impose on another person, one's own individual lifestyle,
mentality and/or spirituality.
If one person chooses to be a raw food eater, the raw food eater has no
right
to forcefully impose on another person, that the other person must also be a
raw food eater.
If one person has the need and chooses to associate with another person in a
legal manner, no other person has the right to stop that person from
associating with whomsoever that person chooses to be with in association.
If one person has the need and chooses to associate one's anatomy and
physiology with another person in a legal manner, no other person has the
right to stop that person from associating one's anatomy and physiology
with
whomsoever that person chooses to be with in association.
If one person has the need and chooses to have sex with another person, no
other person has the right to stop that person from having sex with
whomsoever that person chooses to have sex.
If one person has a committed social relationship with another person, then
that person should openly be able to politely and considerately confront and
discuss with that other person why the other person needs to and chooses
to
have a sexual relationship with other persons.
This person in this committed social relationship, should politely and
considerately ask the other person in this relationship, why this other
person needs to have sex with other persons.
This person in this committed social relationship, should ask the other
person in this relationship, what this person can do to sexually satisfy this
other person in the relationship, so this other person does not need to go
elsewhere for this other person's sexual needs.
Obviously, this person is not sexually satisfying the other person's sexual
needs or the other person would not believe that the other person has to go
elsewhere to satisfy those sexual needs.
If the other person indicates sexual needs beyond that which this person
chooses to satisfy, then this person should tolerate understandingly the
other person's going elsewhere for sexual satisfaction or modify and/or
completely sever the committed social relationship with this other person.
Bernarr

Subject:
Re: monogamy
Date:
Thu, 24 Aug 2000
From:
Forest

> Judy wrote,

It seems like in
> the
> >animal kingdom, all the animals are either monogamous or polygamous
> by
> >instinct, and there is no jealousy involved.

hi judy, i think animals that are either monogamous or polygamous
sometimes
have jealousy factors in their sex life. in most male dominated societies
there is much competition and pecking order mentality. i sense it would have
some element of jealousy involved. there are some animals that mate for
life,
i suspect their social structure is more relaxed but still has the macho
attitude during the initial mating season. i think monogamy or polygamy is
mostly for practical childrearing survival purpose various types of social
orders and also for stages of evolution.

there is a new term in the new age related to sexual partnering called
polyamory(different than polygamy). i have investigated the main website on
the net and been involved in their email discussion group and so far don't see
a model i like and believe me there are all kinds. i do think it might be part
of our spiritual evolution tho but most of us have a long way to go.
>

Subject:
monogamy and natural sexual evolution
Date:
Thu, 24 Aug 2000
From:
Forest

a few thoughts on raw food in relation to sexual preferences, but i must say
when i brought up family matters here on this list i got pretty heavily
attacked for gettin off topic. course i really do see connections everywhere,
just teasin some of those topic police.

i think perhaps there is some truth to the idea that certain types of foods
can overstimulate lower sexual chakra and prevent the energy from rising
for
more spiritual sex. i think this can be the case with all raw or cooked, tho
cooked would no doubt be more agrivating. some foods that come to mind as
possibly being overstimulating would be: grains, seeds, nuts, since they are
like sperm and contain life force in a substance similar to it called albumin.
other foods high in tesosterone might also aggrivate overstimulation.

it seems to me that if one is all raw and eating well balanced (whatever that
is) and also is not overeating and also exploring other spiritual diciplines
such as yoga, meditation, tantra, consensus social interactions, etc. then it
may be that initially we reach a monogamous more ideal type soul mate
tantra
experience and then enter into a group mind consensus experience in small
extended family pods of twelve or less high trust individuals of the same
level of spiritual development.

at this point my intuition (and a few[but not enough] practical clues), tells
me there is no partner marrige at this point. what is at this point is still a
bit of a question for me, but i suspect is is either no sex with extended
family psychic awareness or both group psychic awareness and group sex,
either
one on one in privite amongst individual family members or possibly all
together.

this family would be very close knit and spiritual and be very resoonsible
for any children that resulted within this extended family. none of the
individuals would be forced in any way to participate, rather all actions
would involve the 100% agreement of all those involved.

these are just my intuitive feelings of the moment, i have had some time to
meditate seriously and explore hindu and tantric philosophy and so far this
what i sense might be the spiritual evolution process. until i get there, i'll
keep searchin for clues and others comin to similar conclusions. aloha and
peace, forest

Subject:
balancing instincts
Date:
Fri, 25 Aug 2000
From:
Forest

> Bob wrote:
>
We have
> instincts too, but we tend not to use or live by them, probably much
> to our own detriment in most cases.

i agree bob, the modern world has programed us to ignore instincts and
interaction and bonding with nature. i do think for optimum balance there
would be equal attention given to the intuition and the practical mind.

Subject:
Re: monogamy
Date:
Fri, 25 Aug 2000
From:
Forest
>
> jb writes,
>
> > > Libido is strictly connected and dependent
> > > to the state of toxicity of the Organism: a perfectly detoxified
> > > One rises above sex and emerges into the dimension of Love.
>
mark responds:> If this is so, then if the whole human race were to become
detoxified
> (highly unlikely) our lack of interest in sex would result in the race dying
> out due to insufficient reproduction. That is, unless some of volunteer to
> do the nasty deed for humanity's sake. :)

forest responds: i think he means they still have sexual interactions but
more on a spiritual
level than an animal or primal level. correct me if i am wrong jb. this would
be how i feel if nothin else. f

Subject:
Re: Free book offer! Get a free copy of THE RAW LIFE
Date:
Sat, 26 Aug 2000
From:
Forest

Paul wrote:
>
> Hello Friends,
> I am offering a special.

howdy list folks, just wonderin how others feel about advertising on this
list. i have nothin personal against this individual, but since he is not a
participant of this list it seems a little "spamlike" to be sending his
advertisements here. anyone know if the owner of this list has approved
advertisments. i guess i could live with it, but it feels good to find places
that are more in the spirit of friendship than business. in the spirit of
getting more from nature and less from money, aloha and peace, f

Subject:
Re: monogamy
Date:
Sat, 26 Aug 2000
From:
Forest

well said vicki, in tantra the theory is that the transcendance of polarity or
samhadi is more easily accessed thru carefully orchesrated sexual practices.
it is said in tantra that an individual can achieve this state as a celibate
monk/nun but it is much quicker with a balanced partner. f

Vicky wrote:
>
> Ar hah, the holier than thou attitude......
> Why should you feel guilty about having sex! Its just another thing humans
> can do to have fun !! You really think you cant be in the dimension of love
> when you have sex!! Sorry I have to disagree with this.
> I think this is peoples feelings of guilt with sex, Christians try to
> explain this with "original sin " etc...... its basically not loving
> yourself
> enough!!
>
> any natural animal that is "completly detoxed" still has sex.......
>
> Franny
>
> >jb wrote:
> > > > Libido is strictly connected and dependent
> > > > to the state of toxicity of the Organism: a perfectly detoxified
> > > > One rises above sex and emerges into the dimension of Love.
>

Subject:
Re: Free book offer! Get a free copy of THE RAW LIFE
Date:
Sun, 27 Aug 2000
From:
Forest
>
> > Bob Avery wrote:
> >
> > I agree. Forest seems to be overcritical about people making a
> > living.
>
> not really, just that other lists i am on feel this type thing is
> inappropriate, i sorta do too, but it appears i am in the minority. how many
times a week and in how many ways do we need to be told someone has a
book for
sale? i think it's great people write books and share ideas. i am sure paul's
book
is a labor of love and no doubt may help others find their way into raw foods.i
just don't make a habit of visiting
> friends and offering a sales pitch and then leave without even sayin hello.
not
polite in my mind. too
> much business, not enough friendship.

over the years i learned from considerable experience that money is more
important than friendship in todays modern world, even out here in nature. i
guess not too many folks share that opinion or see how that could undermine
our health.

i also learned that living more naturally allows me to need money less, and
how that effects my self esteem and stress levels. there is a lotta stress
surrounding money issues in life. the more we go for money the less time we
have for nature or friendship in my mind. in my mind money is toxic in much
the same way as toxins in the body and the more i eliminate that toxin in my
life the healthier i and nature will be.

there are lotta people it appears into raw foods, but not into raw natural
living. there is a bit of a contridiction there in my mind. not taking full
responsibility for ones life in a natural way.

also those into spiritual living seem to think the capitalistic money based
ecomomies are a fine place to look for god/goddess. nothing could be further
from the truth in my mind.

money in the ideal natural world that i envision is less and less needed or
used. i introduce folks to a system of natural spiritual living, it involves
taking responsibility for oneself with nature. money based economic systems
in
my mind are not natural, and not responsible to the individual or nature, and
sidetrack us from natural living and health. if we know we have more natural
choices and there is logical way to get them without money, why would we
continue the old way? habit i quess and the ability to have someone else do
the dirty work or nature for us. how sad that those folks don't know how
much
the dirty work of natural living feeds the spirit and self esteem.
> >
> > >It is OK to try to make a living doing what you believe in.
>
> so if i believe in using pesticides to save labor and i make a living at it, it
is
> ok? if i believe a car will get me somewhere fast and easy it is ok to pollute
the earth while i do it? do you really believe that above statement?
> >
> > Not only is it OK, it's the best and most honorable way to make money.

in my mind, the best and most honorable way to make a ****living**** is
living
in nature, using money less and nature more.

i guess i have an issue with how capitalism operates and has interfered and
contributed to a move away from natural living, the dissolution of the family,
and destruction of the environment. in my mind all these things are
encouraged
in a money based ecomomy.

when people discuss raw foods i get the impression they are interested in
living natually. the federal reserve is a privately owned corporation, i'm
surprised bob, with all yer conspiracy fears that you are not more onto what
is going on with money interests and how they are contributing to eco-
problems.

i know that most of us here are not major contributors to the eco-problems
but i see us all involved to one degree or another(including me) and it all
adds up over time and it is all a karma we are living with until we act on the
other choices available. and in my mind time is running short, there is not
enough time for us all to get rich selling books on raw foods and living in
the system. if you don't see that, well what more can i say. aloha and peace,
f

Subject:
Re: Free book offer! Get a free copy of THE RAW LIFE
Date:
Sun, 27 Aug 2000
From:
Forest

someone wrote:
>
> dear forest - well, once again you have managed to put your foot in your
> mouth, or should i say put an email on the list without really knowing what
> the hell you are spewing about.

aloha , you seem to often approach discussion from an anger based put
down the other approach and then start the dialog with dear forest. in some
ways i see you putting yer foot in yer mouth here.

paul has been a participant on this list
> long before you ever contributed, if that is what you think you are doing.

this statement doesn't make sense, but i will try to interpret yer thoughts.
if paul was a participant in the past that is fine, but he isn't now, he is an
advertiser.

> i for one am getting tired of how you justify your criticisms about just
> about everything.

how is that different than you? in truth i try to refine every aspect of my
life to be more in tune with natural raw life and health. yes, i am critical,
but unlike you i have options and refinements to offer in place of what i am
being critical of. in my mind it is good to be constantly looking at ways to
improve living. eating raw foods is only one of many such ways.

i wish you would check with me or jr to get a grip on
> reality of who's who and what's what before you start putting down
whatever
> and whoever.

i asked a point blank question on the list to the owner and the group doing
more or less exactly what you suggest, and i thought i was pretty humble in
my
approach.

if you think i am being touchy, grouchy, grumpy, or woke up
> the wrong side of the bed, i will not make any excuses for what i say: quit
> shooting from the hip friend. you are way too quick on the trigger, err,
> make that mouse.

and what about you shooting from the hip or being trigger happy? yes, in
this
case and others i see you as being touchy, grumpy, grouchy, in yer emails. i
still love you tho and feel free to be whatever.

i think you maybe hanging around too many coconuts and its
> rubbing off on you.

i would rather hang around coconuts than bank accounts, i think it is more
healthy, coconuts are raw, money is processed and the process contributes
to
eco-problems.

i will speak for jr (owner)here and i know he would put
> a very healthy thumbs up and approval of what paul has done. if i am wrong
> in speaking about what i am sure jr would say and approve of, i'll eat a
> cooked piece of meat and forever remain contrite. neil

wow, you really go overboard to make a point sometimes, i would never hold
you
to such a thing, you seem like a typical competitive(i'm right yer wrong) male
type, have you ever investigated cooperation ideas, they are very healthy
approach to social interaction.

Subject:
Re: [Fwd: Free book offer! Get a free copy of THE RAW
LIFE]
Date:
Sun, 27 Aug 2000
From:
tom

> >
>> > >It is OK to try to make a living doing what you believe in.
>>
>> so if i believe in using pesticides to save labor and i make a living at
>>it, it is
>> ok? if i believe a car will get me somewhere fast and easy it is ok to
>>pollute the earth while i do it? do you really believe that above
>>statement?

tom said,
You know that is not what we are talking about here. Paul has put
out a book about being RAW, the subtitle of which is "Being natural in an
unnatural world". This seems to me to be something that you might support.

If you would like to start a list to discuss far ranging topics
such as Capitalism and how it effects your "system of natural spiritual
living" then I would be the first one to join it. You seem to have a need
to do this. Please, Let's keep this list focused on Raw foods. Thanks --tom

Subject:
Re: Free book offer! Get a free copy of THE RAW LIFE
Date:
Sun, 27 Aug 2000
From:
Forest

someone wrote:
>
> bob - i still stand on what i say about being too quick and not knowing
> what ones says before saying it. i have seen forest time and again create
> controversy and he seems to thrive on it.

i knew what i was sayin.i think we can all thrive on controversy provided we
are polite, humble and considerate.

only AFTER he reacts does he give
> his long winded explanations.

well, first i investigate the situation, if i disagree with the situation,
like most others here i may get long winded in order to make a point, i don't
see any problem with that.

i wish people would THINK things through and
> ask first.

i did think thru and then ask.

he could have asked:"who is paul? has he contributed to this
> list before?

i already knew who paul is, i like the guy, we have emailed in private, but he
has not offered anything other than advertisements for several months.

have i missed something like jr's policy on listmembers
> offering their creative efforts?"

i did ask that question.

a firm reprimand seemed to be in
> order, for private emailings have been to no avail.

to the best of my knowledge you have only emailed me once in private and
that
was in relation to a whole other subject.

i have learned that
> proper netiquette requires a discrete private inquiry before spewing
> publicly on a list.

i didn't spew, i simply asked for others opinion and offered mine in a humble
way, a very short email.

apparently forest has not learned this despite my
> repeated private emailings in the past asking him to do so. i trust that at
> least partially explains why i have written the way i did.

i learned to be polite and humble and honest long before coming here. you
have
not repeatedly emailed me regarding netiquette, as far as i know this is the
first time, that is a lie and i don't know why you are saying it? to protect
your own ego no doubt. but in reality you are digging a deeper hole for the
self. i love you anyway, nobodies perfect, including me. aloha and peace,
forest

Subject:
Re: [Fwd: Free book offer! Get a free copy of THE RAW
LIFE]
Date:
Sun, 27 Aug 2000
From:
Forest

tom wrote:
>
> > >
> >> > >It is OK to try to make a living doing what you believe in.
> >>
forest wrote:> >> so if i believe in using pesticides to save labor and i make
a living at
> >>it, it is
> >> ok? if i believe a car will get me somewhere fast and easy it is ok to
> >>pollute the earth while i do it? do you really believe that above
> >>statement?
>
> tom wrote,
> You know that is not what we are talking about here.

forest wrote: it is good to take care of how one words a debate so as not to
appear close
minded or narrow minded. i saw a certain degree of narowmindedness in that
above statement and thought it worthy of debating. if it is not what you are
talking about, then why say it in the first place?

Paul has put
> out a book about being RAW, the subtitle of which is "Being natural in an
> unnatural world". This seems to me to be something that you might
support.

yes i do support that concept. i support it so much i discuss and live it
freely. paul has obviously put some effort into a book. i am putting effort on
this site
>
> If you would like to start a list to discuss far ranging topics
> such as Capitalism and how it effects your "system of natural spiritual
> living" then I would be the first one to join it. You seem to have a need
> to do this. Please, Let's keep this list focused on Raw foods. Thanks --tom

i have noticed others on the list discussing far ranging topics on this list
but it seems when i do it is not ok. i suspect the reason for that is because
i bring up sensitive issues others are unwilling to look at and see. these
connections in our own lives are ways in which we subtlely or not so subtlely
contribute to the eco-destruction of the planet. keep in mind tom that the
planet is where raw food comes from not just a grocery store. i see a direct
connection to ecology issues and raw food and capitalism and many others on
this list do to based on the dialogs we are sharing. those who don't i suspect
will limit their health as a result. many raw fooders i know are very narrowly
focused and not very healthy as a result. aloha and peace, f
>

Subject:
Capitalism and Money
Date:
Sun, 27 Aug 2000
From:
Bob

Forest,

>if we know we have more natural
>choices and there is logical way to get them without money, why would we
>continue the old way?

You make some good points, but this is not an either/or issue. It is a matter
of degrees as well as
spiritual advancement. You may be holier than many of us, but even you
agree that you still need SOME
money. We each evolve at our own pace.

Even you appear not to know how to live entirely without money. I sure don't,
not successfully
anyway, though I keep my financial needs fairly low.

>i guess i have an issue with how capitalism operates and has interfered and
>contributed to a move away from natural living, the dissolution of the
family,
>and destruction of the environment. in my mind all these things are
encouraged
>in a money based ecomomy.

I don't see capitalism as being responsible for any of that. In fact, the
former Soviet Union, a
completely socialist system, created perhaps even more serious pollution
problems in their own realm
than we have in this country. Many of their rivers and lakes are dangerously
polluted, and Chernobyl
left many areas radioactive. Short-sighted technological growth is
responsible for this, not capitalism.

>when people discuss raw foods i get the impression they are interested in
>living natually. the federal reserve is a privately owned corporation, i'm
>surprised bob, with all yer conspiracy fears that you are not more onto
what
>is going on with money interests and how they are contributing to eco-
problems.

The fact is we are living with Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) these days, which
are not even real
money. Gold and silver are real money. Yes, greedy people are raping the
planet, but this has nothing
to do with capitalism or even money per se. It is how "money" and power and
political influence are
being used, combined with a largely ignorant populace, that is the problem.

someone wrote,

>apparently forest has not learned this despite my
>repeated private emailings in the past asking him to do so. i trust that at
>least partially explains why i have written the way i did.

Perhaps you could have prefaced your remarks with that statement. The
rest of us have no clue about
your private conversations. It just sounded like you were on a rant and just
as quick on the trigger as
Forest.

Bob

Subject:
message to all from list owner
Date:
Sun, 27 Aug 2000
From:
a list member

i need to set the record straight. paul's post about his raw book has been
approved. similarly, forest's posts have also been approved. if they were
not, they could have been/would have been censored. i have just been
publicly accused of being a liar by forest which is not going to be
responded to. however in the future, if anybody else on this list is going
to be addressed in such a public manner that is as rude and untrue as
forest has just done with me, he or anyone else will not be welcome on this
forum and can be censored. i believe in private emails to voice ones
personal feelings. advice and support about raw food is what we're about in
general. thank you for your kind attention. please, private emails
regarding any of the above are welcome.

Subject:
fairness?
Date:
Sun, 27 Aug 2000
From:
Forest

i feel i need to set the record straight also i guess. i feel i have been
publicly repremanded for doing something that never happened the way it
was
described. if one accuses someone of something that is not true, and says
harsh things to them and they respond in defense of their position, i do not
feel there is any reason for censor, unless we can also agree the original
accusation of what forest supposedly did(ignore emails from the list owner)
is
censored also. i tend to sometimes get defensive when accused of things
that
are untrue. aloha and peace, forest

Subject:
Re: Capitalism and Money
Date:
Sun, 27 Aug 2000
From:
Forest

> Bob wrote:
>
> Forest,
>
> >if we know we have more natural
> >choices and there is logical way to get them without money, why would
> we
> >continue the old way?
>
bob said:> You make some good points, but this is not an either/or issue. It
is
> a matter of degrees as well as spiritual advancement. You may be
> holier than many of us, but even you agree that you still need SOME
> money. We each evolve at our own pace.

i agree, i am just trying to help make people aware of the situations we live
in and the choices that are available. it is up to each of us to decide what
to do about it and when etc.
>
> Even you appear not to know how to live entirely without money. I
> sure don't, not successfully anyway, though I keep my financial needs
> fairly low.

yes, i have admitted repeatedly how we all(including me) "buy into" the
system. but as you say it's a matter of degrees and i am willing to discuss
and act on less and less degrees of that which i see as limiting, especially
with a team/family effort and support it can be achieved by all if it is their
sincere desire. i have come a long way from the average american in terms
of
consumer consumption, mostly on my own. with the support of a group i
sense
we/i could go much further
>
> >i guess i have an issue with how capitalism operates and has
> interfered and
> >contributed to a move away from natural living, the dissolution of
> the family,
> >and destruction of the environment. in my mind all these things are
> encouraged
> >in a money based ecomomy.
>
> I don't see capitalism as being responsible for any of that. In fact,
> the former Soviet Union, a completely socialist system, created
> perhaps even more serious pollution problems in their own realm than
> we have in this country. Many of their rivers and lakes are
> dangerously polluted, and Chernobyl left many areas radioactive.
> Short-sighted technological growth is responsible for this, not
> capitalism.

just because communism has been a major polluter doesn't mean we dismiss
the
other or lesser polluters does it? and now that russia is democratic and
capitalistic there is business corruption and problems of all kinds like that
in russia today. there is a definite obvious connection(in my mind anyway)
between technological growth, and capitalism, and polluting, and money
interests involved in lobying government and politics. remember all those
sayings like " the buck stops here". our american dream culture is full of
reference to how "money talks" in society. i'm really just sayin capitalism is
a tired horse capable of contributing to mass destruction of the earth if left
unchecked or unrefined. i am not judging those at various degrees of
involvement i am merely tryin to say look at what's happening, here are some
choices to consider and there may not be much more time we can operate
this
way and survive as a species. monsanto is only one scarey example of how
money
talks and how our bank accounts are invested by the bank in the corpate
world
for profits. as long as we put our money in banks and play into the system
we
are to one degree or another part of the problem.
>
> The fact is we are living with Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) these
> days, which are not even real money. Gold and silver are real money.
> Yes, greedy people are raping the planet, but this has nothing to do
> with capitalism or even money per se. It is how "money" and power and
> political influence are being used, combined with a largely ignorant
> populace, that is the problem.

i don't see how you can say it has nothing to do with capitalism. it is all
connected as far as i can see.
>
> someone wrote,
>
> >apparently forest has not learned this despite my
> >repeated private emailings in the past asking him to do so. i trust
> that at
> >least partially explains why i have written the way i did.

there were never any repeated emails about anything to me ever.

Subject:
you are a real piece of work
Date:
Mon, 28 Aug 2000
From:
a list member

in private someone said:

ya know, ronald regan got away with a whole bunch of nasty doings when
president by 'selectively forgetting" and stating: "i don't remember that."
you are so full of yourself when it comes to defending your position. are
you going to tell me that you did not get private emails from me right from
the get go? when you first sent in your post of 5-11 introducing yourself
and your grand plan, i commented about your lack of mentioning god. that
was the beginning of several, not just a few, or even the one that you
publicly admitted either yesterday or today. oh, how quickly they forget. i
will not tolerate or suffer fools who choose to believe in their own false
reality. writing now is just another example of how, like in the past, i
chose to privately put issues in their proper place. you on the other hand
have been notoriously inconsiderate by insisting on airing your opinions
publicly. if you think you are mr. right on, i leave you to your delusion
forest. you really are out of control and top heavy as i have told you
before. where's the heart, the genuine honesty, not just a whole bunch of
mental posturing. when you were supposed to leave the list, i was hoping
you would because i guess then you got the vibe that maybe, just maybe, you
were out of line and truly needed to be somewhere else with your consensus
reality. i didn't push anything then, and i will not stoop to the same
double speak standards now that you choose to uphold as professed
innocence
and defense of yourself. i see thru your stuff and have tried in the past
to hold up a mirror in friendship. if you want to do a mirror job and at
least be a friend to your conscience, look hard at yourself in one and tell
yourself that you have been completely truthful when you say i lied and
only sent you one private email. shame on you if you truly believe that one
because if you can lie to your own face, god (oh by golly, i said the
dreaded "g" word again) help us in whatever else you are capable of lying
about. the truth is true no matter how many times you try and convince
yourself otherwise. believing in something false does not make it any
truer.

check your emails on the following dates that my 'puter shows i emailed
you. 5-11,15, 19, 26, 6-27, 28, 7-4, 2x on 7-6, 20, 8-11, 17, 19, 26.
granted, some of these were forwarded to the list, but on 5-18 and 6-30 i
definitely sent you private emails. i don't want to air dirty laundry, but
at least i know i had sent you private emails despite your last public
words:".....never any emails about anything to me ever." hmmm. if there is
one lesson to learn, and again this is private unlike your public, never
say never. it would be nice if you checked, and if i am right, why don't
you fess up and apologize. if you erase messages for some reason, i'll be
happy to forward them to you privately. then you can plainly see that it's
simply not nice to say what you said. sorry dude, i can't help knowing what
is true. i ain't making this up and selectively forgetting just to be on
some ego trip. truth. is it what you want too? i hope so for all our sakes,
for even if one is out of the realm of truth, where are they then?

Subject:
Re: Capitalism and Money
Date:
Mon, 28 Aug 2000
From:
Bob

Forest,

>remember all those sayings like " the buck stops here". our american dream
culture is full >of reference
to how "money talks" in society

Yes, but this is not the fault of capitalism, IMO. Money talks in
noncapitalistic countries too. And last I
looked, this country is less and less capitalist and more socialist all the time.

>. i'm really just sayin capitalism is
>a tired horse capable of contributing to mass destruction of the earth if
left
>unchecked or unrefined.

And I see it differently. Nobody has yet tried "unchecked and unrefined"
capitalism that I am aware of.
All the biggest money interests are oligarchs and influence peddlers, not
capitalists. The last thing they
want is free and open competition. They don't want a level playing field,
which is what true capitalism
is all about. They want rules and laws that give them unfair advantages over
the competition -- and they
use their money and power to get it.

>monsanto is only one scarey example of how money talks

And Monsanto believes in monopolistic socialism, not capitalism.

>how our bank accounts are invested by the bank in the corpate world
>for profits.

The Federal Reserve banking system is corrupt also. They have a monopoly
on the "money" supply in
this country (as do similar outfits in most other countries). This is not
capitalism either.

>as long as we put our money in banks and play into the system we
>are to one degree or another part of the problem.

There aren't many choices. As I pointed out, we no longer have real money in
this country. People do
not price their goods and services in terms of gold and silver, so when barter
is not freely available,
paper "money" must be used. You use it too.

>i don't see how you can say it has nothing to do with capitalism. it is all
>connected as far as i can see.
I still see no connection there.

Bob

Subject:
Re: Capitalism and Money
Date:
Mon, 28 Aug 2000
From:
Forest

> Bob wrote:

> Yes, but this is not the fault of capitalism, IMO. Money talks in
> noncapitalistic countries too. And last I looked, this country is
> less and less capitalist and more socialist all the time.

i don't know of any non capitalist countries at this time. and so you admit
money talks, that's all i been tryin to say.

> And I see it differently. Nobody has yet tried "unchecked and
> unrefined" capitalism that I am aware of.

i am open to the concept of refined capitalism, i mentioned it before in
letters to you. i just see the current model as very polluting, and i see
individuals of all kinds "buying into" in to one degree or another.

All the biggest money
> interests are oligarchs and influence peddlers, not capitalists.

i have seen both large and small businesses get so caught up in competition
that they disregard being careful with the environment. i see the poor and
the
rich individuals who live in the system buy into things like cars(which are
big polluters) and numerous other items knowing full well they are having a
negative effect on the environment. i see that land trust friends with
consensus could have so much spirit that if they needed a car they could
build
an electric one with the knowledge and spirit combined in the group. stuff
like that, refinements to capitalism or transitioning to some other model, not
cold turkey.

The
> last thing they want is free and open competition.

that's the last thing i want too, what ever happened to the spitit of
cooperation? it got left behind at the food coop store front, isn't it high
time it move on to the coop farm front to have more direct access to nature
and spirit.

They don't want a
> level playing field, which is what true capitalism is all about.

has there ever been true capitalism, not sure even what it would be, his-
story
is filled with capitalism for greed, power, competition, etc. and we are all
"buying into" it by using banks, buying cars, using federal reserve notes,
etc. all that is supporting a dead horse that served us for awhile but if left
unchecked could develop mad cow disease and kill us all.

They
> want rules and laws that give them unfair advantages over the
> competition -- and they use their money and power to get it.

that's what competition is all about. that's the system we buy into when we
put our money in their(our) banks. we are all guilty to one degree or another
by the level of our participation.
>
> And Monsanto believes in monopolistic socialism, not capitalism.

whatever they believe in they are funded by banks using john doe's money.
john
doe is karmically responsible to one degree or another and it all adds up to a
big mess.
>
> The Federal Reserve banking system is corrupt also. They have a
> monopoly on the "money" supply in this country (as do similar outfits
> in most other countries). This is not capitalism either.

it is some form of capitalism, the one in use today, the one we support when
we go to the bank or wall mart or whatever.

> There aren't many choices. As I pointed out, we no longer have real
> money in this country. People do not price their goods and services
> in terms of gold and silver, so when barter is not freely available,
> paper "money" must be used. You use it too.

there are always many choices to problems. if we dwell on the problem or
ignore the problem we often say there are no choices. the system thrives on
that type of complacency. there is no law against using gold and silver for
exchange. there are various barter systems popping up here and there that
attempt to refine the model. yes i use it too. haven't i admitted that in
numerous other emails, why do you feel you need to remind me? despite my
level
of involvement i am willing to try something new or refine the process, are
you? if so, how can we cooperate together to be more effective and support
each other's growth?

> I still see no connection there.

what can i say? f

Subject:
Re: Capitalism and Money
Date:
Mon, 28 Aug 2000
From:
Forest

> Mark wrote:
>
> Even in the USA, the worst polluter is the U.S. government. See the
> excellent four-part series in the Boston Globe:
> http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/pollution/day1.htm Most
> pollution in this country happens because the government allows
> industries to pollute government property. Clear-cutting and strip
> mining are two examples of ruinous practices that happen mostly on
> government owned land.

those who use money and live in the system called capitalism in my mind are
directly connected to government, banks, consumerism, etc and the pollution
of
the world to one degree or another. we can reduce that degree by living more
sustainable lives close to nature.
>
> It is naive to think that we ever can, or should, do away with money.

i see yer point here, in todays modern world of hi tech consumerism, just
remember it is not that long since we lived in nature without money. i am not
so opposed to money as i am in support of living more naturally with less
money. live simply so that others may simply live. i would be willing to go
back to the stone age if i could have access to land and a consensus family
and i am quite sure i would be happier and healthier than the average person
who "buys into" the american dream.

> Even in a barter system you still have money. Instead of paper or
> coins you trade the goods that you have. But what do you do when you
> have coconuts and you want bananas, but the other guy has only
> walnuts? For the sake of efficiency, you come up with a commonly
> accepted medium of exchange. There is nothing inherently evil about
> it. But I think there is more potential for corruption in a society
> where you have collective ownership of assets or government run
> monopolies.

i agree
>
> Getting back to the original subject of this thread, I don't think
> Paul Nison will be on the Fortune 500 list anytime soon, but even if
> he is, I don't have a problem with his entrepreneurial efforts. Maybe
> Forest just saw one too many of his promotional letters. We all get
> spammed, and sometimes the line gets blurry.

i agree, thanks for your comments, f

Subject:
Re: from Paul. Free Book Offer....
Date:
Mon, 28 Aug 2000
From:
Forest

aloha paul, thanks for your letter, just for the record i would like to make
it extra clear that i do not have and issue with you making money on yer
book.
as i myself and others have pointed out, i still use money, but less and less
as i get more set up on the farm here. i wish you well on yer efforts and am
sure some folks will benefit from it.

most of the thread on capitalism came in defense to others who questioned
my
reactions to your posting advertisements. i guess the frequency of your ads
and the fact that you have not been an active participant here on the list
made me feel a little annoyed by the advertising. i am the kind of person who
watches public tv cause i don't like advertising. i also take labels off glass
jars just cause i like the natural look even if the labels are products i
approve of.

i do have an issue with how capitalism operates at this time and do not see it
as the final say on how to relate with trade and each other. it looks like i
am somewhat alone on this issue. but i see a lotta stress and pollution in the
system around money matters for individuals, countries, environments, etc.
i
see banks taking what appears to be innocent peoples money and investing it
in
polluting business interests.

i see living close to nature in a self-sufficient way on a non-profit
coopertive land trust with a group of supportive consensus likeminded
friends
teaching by example and offering retreat space and education on natural
survival and health skills to those less fortunate who are willing to learn. i
think books are a fine way to teach, but see teaching by living the example as
more effective, since if nothing else i can have less impact on the
environment by getting as much sustainance from nature as opposed to
using
money in stores. best wishes on yer new book. f

Paul wrote:
>
> Hello Everyone,
> I would just like to reply and give my opinion to some of the comments I
> have seen here about me and my book advertisements.

Subject:
Re: Free book offer! Get a free copy of THE RAW LIFE
Date:
Mon, 28 Aug 2000
From:
Forest

>someone wrote:
>
> a firm reprimand seemed to be in
> > order, for private emailings have been to no avail.

hi , here's where the lie comes in. where are the private emailings from
you that refer to me doing something wrong.
>
> apparently forest has not learned this despite my
> > repeated private emailings in the past asking him to do so. i trust that at
> > least partially explains why i have written the way i did. neil

this stretches the lie even further when you say "repeated emails" in the
past
asking him to do so. what was i supposed to do, where are the private
emails?
i looked at yer recent letter to me in private and checked the two private
emails you refered to and only found one and that was in reference to an
uncontroversial topic, had nothing to do with reprimanding me on anything. i
did find one private email close to the date of the other one you refered to
and that was in regard to jb not a reprimand.

gee, you seem like a pretty nice guy for the most part, i have enjoyed
some of the dialog we share. you seem overly defensive and grumpy and
competitive sometimes but other times seem to be in a good mood. i get in
grumpy moods too and try not to interact too much at thoses times. you
said
some things about me in public that were not true. you can deny it or you can
appoligize to me and i will forget and not bring it up anymore. i wish you
well. aloha and peace, forest for earth releaf

Subject:
apology
Date:
Mon, 28 Aug 2000
From:
Forest

excuse me for this interuption again. i would like to apologize to both the
individual
and the list for the last two emails, the first one was supposed to go to
someone
privately but i made a mistake. the other email(this one) is to apologize for
that mistake. aloha, forest

Subject:
Re: Capitalism and Money
Date:
Mon, 28 Aug 2000
From:
Bob

Forest wrote,

>i see yer point here, in todays modern world of hi tech consumerism, just
>remember it is not that long since we lived in nature without money.

How many thousands of years do you consider "not that long"? Money
certainly goes back to the
Roman, Greek, and Egyptian empires and probably long before that.

Money was invented because it served a useful need, not for some of the
puposes it has been put to.

Is a knife evil? Doesn't it depend on what one does with it?

>i am quite sure i would be happier and healthier than the average person
>who "buys into" the american dream.

I doubt anyone on this list buys into the American dream.

>i don't know of any non capitalist countries at this time. and so you admit
>money talks, that's all i been tryin to say.

And I don't know any that ARE capitalist. Switzerland probably comes
closest. They are all various
shades of socialist. There are many that are predominantly socialist or
fascist -- Cuba, China, Iran,
Libya, Nigeria, Iraq, are some of the many that come to mind off the top of
my head.

>i am open to the concept of refined capitalism, i mentioned it before in
>letters to you. i just see the current model as very polluting, and i see
>individuals of all kinds "buying into" in to one degree or another.

The current model IS "refined" (i.e., adulterated) capitalism.

>i have seen both large and small businesses get so caught up in competition
>that they disregard being careful with the environment.

And our legal system fails to punish them for it. People should be held
accountable for their actions.
One thing I AM opposed to is the corporate form of ownership. It allows
people to hide their
irresponsibility behind the so-called "corporate veil." If people realized they
could go to jail for
committing crimes against nature, not just maybe have their corporations
fined if they get caught, people
would be a lot more careful about what they do. Legal reform is what is
needed here, not abolishing
capitalism.

>i see the poor and the
>rich individuals who live in the system buy into things like cars(which are
>big polluters) and numerous other items knowing full well they are having a
>negative effect on the environment.

This is a social problem. It happens in communist countries too. Education is
the best answer to
widespread social problems. Also a Constitutional Republic form of strictly
limited government, which
is what ours is "supposed" to be, that protects the rights of minorities to
pursue life, liberty, and
happiness (which includes breathing clean air and so forth). No matter what
system of government you
have, though, it's pretty tough to protect yourself from an out-of-control
large majority. Minorities are
always punished in one way or another no matter what form of government
you have.

>i see that land trust friends with
>consensus could have so much spirit that if they needed a car they could
build
>an electric one with the knowledge and spirit combined in the group. stuff
>like that, refinements to capitalism or transitioning to some other model,
not
>cold turkey.

Nowadays maybe that could be done. Electric cars were not always an
option. The production of
batteries and electricity is also a polluting activity. So is the manufacture of
the metal, rubber tires, and
most of the other structural components of the vehicle that you and your
friends would be assembling
from PURCHASED parts, not creating from raw materials -- not unless y'all
are a lot more talented than
I think!

>that's the last thing i want too, what ever happened to the spitit of
cooperation?

Competition and cooperation are not exclusive alternatives. They can co-
exist nicely.

>> want rules and laws that give them unfair advantages over the
>> competition -- and they use their money and power to get it.
>
>that's what competition is all about.

No, that's what PREVENTION of competition is all about.

Bob

Subject:
Re: from Paul. Free Book Offer....
Date:
Mon, 28 Aug 2000
From:
Bob

Forest wrote,

> i think books are a fine way to teach, but see teaching by living the
example as
>but see teaching by living the example as
>more effective, since if nothing else i can have less impact on the
environment

How do you measure effectiveness? In terms of number of people reached,
books and other media,
such as this internet, are much more effective than living in a small,
ecological community most people
will never hear about.

Having "less impact on the environment" includes less impact on other people
with your ideas too. I'm
not saying you shouldn't be setting an example; this is a very adnirable way
to live. What I'm
questioning is its "effectiveness." Scott and Helen Nearing did both -- they
lived in a mostly
self-sufficient environment AND they wrote books about it to teach and
reach others. I see that as more
effective than either approach alone. But you should realize that not
everyone is yet ready to drop all of
their upbringing and habits immediately and follow the pied piper into
unchartered territory.

Bob

Subject:
twisted bro/apology
Date:
Tue, 29 Aug 2000
From:
a list member

man, can you believe how you are a regular pro at twisting things around?
first you assail paul. now, all
of a sudden, you are mr. nice guy to him and explain it away about being
"annoyed," and by golly, it's
all due to public tv. gee, so sorry you out there on the farm with all those
labels of products you still
consume getting annoyed. how annoying to read how tough it is for you on
your island.
then, you publicly assail me, call me a liar, state as if fact again, "never
sent me one private email
about anything". i send you proof of that untruth last night PRIVATELY AGAIN
, and then today
almost true to form, you get off on this public forum. what is the matter
with you? it's a darn good thing
you then apologized forest. you may be pathological and certifiable in the way
you seem to talk a mean
streak, but then your public actions show just how inconsiderate you really
are. and i say this not just to
defend myself personally. there is perhaps a lesson here you may wish to
learn from: since i have been
designated the substitute moderator/list owner in jr's absence, i am privy to
emails that other people have
written me regarding you. they have left the list specifically because i have
let you continue without
censorship since you've come on board in may. my problem has been that the
private emails to you were
not just because i personally felt netiquette demanded it. it was because i as
a "list moderator" was
responsible for what was going on with people privately complaining and
unsubscribing. i tried to
handle it the best way i knew how which was sending my emails personally and
privately so you would
be spared hurt feelings if you truly knew how some others felt. so yes, while
it was personal on my part
and the lines got blurry, it was also to protect my friend jr's list from your
particular style of 'listing' that
really turned some people off. that was a primary reason why i said i was
hoping you would leave
peacefully several weeks ago when you felt some of this. if i was simply on
this list on my own, i guess
i would have publicly printed my private emails to you just to prove how you
have either deliberately and
inaccurately reported that i did not, or perhaps as you have previously
suggested to defend my ego. what
difference does it make, because my hands are still tied as "list owner" and
as i did last night i privately
showed you that it WAS rude of you, to say the least, to report publicly that
i didn't "ever once send a
private email about anything." if i sent you a private email about your
mother, it was at least once more
than never. so i sent one about jb. why you then slam me AGAIN PUBLICLY
after you know this, and
also demand an apology after last nights private email, shows me you are
definitely one person i would
never trust again. but like i said to you in last nights email, never say never.
so let me rephrase that: after
last night and today, you have proven to me that you are one person that i
would not trust. the fact that
you have followed with an apology i sincerely appreciate and truly respect.
thank you from my heart. but
i still would not trust you. after last night and today, i know you have
betrayed it. consider that personal.
however, as the temporary list moderator, what i would respectfully ask
of you as i mentioned earlier,
is to please consider how others have already left the list because of you and
to VERY carefully
consider how and what you write, even if and when "annoyed", so as to not
chase away any more folks.
please. thank you.

Subject:
the best things in life are free
Date:
Mon, 28 Aug 2000
From:
Forest

> Bob wrote:
>
> How many thousands of years do you consider "not that long"? Money
> certainly goes back to the Roman, Greek, and Egyptian empires and
> probably long before that.

you are correct in those cultures use of money but at the same time many
more
tribal societies were less money based and more trade based. interesting
that
you mention those cultures. am starting to see that money is more a part of
centralized governments and cultures.
>
> Money was invented because it served a useful need, not for some of
> the puposes it has been put to.

yes, i agree, but in my discussions i am referring to the money system we
have
worldwide and the investments made by banks.
>
> Is a knife evil? Doesn't it depend on what what does with it?

yes, but most of us to one degree or another are using money that is
corrupted
by the systems we use it in and if we participate we are part of it.
>
> I doubt anyone on this list buys into the American dream.

i doubt that anyone on this list does not buy into the american dream to one
degree or another, meself included.
>
> And I don't know any that ARE capitalist.

i guess yer term of capitalism is some ideal that has never existed. in my
use
of the word capitalism i am referring to countries that buy into the
corporate
world trade and world money system.
>
> >i am open to the concept of refined capitalism, i mentioned it before
> in
> >letters to you. i just see the current model as very polluting, and i
> see
> >individuals of all kinds "buying into" in to one degree or another.
>
> The current model IS "refined" (i.e., adulterated) capitalism.

i was referring to refined in the sense of more fair and just.
>
> And our legal system fails to punish them for it. People should be
> held accountable for their actions.

do you think people who drive in gas polluting cars and jets should be held
accountable for their actions or does it just pertain to corporations. that is
what i am tryin to point out, we are all to one degree or another "buying into
a polluting system". do we have choices? yes

One thing I AM opposed to is the
> corporate form of ownership. It allows people to hide their
> irresponsibility behind the so-called "corporate veil." If people
> realized they could go to jail for committing crimes against nature,
> not just maybe have their corporations fined if they get caught,
> people would be a lot more careful about what they do. Legal reform
> is what is needed here, not abolishing capitalism.

what about us individuals, we are also guilty by our participation to one
degree or another. we as individuals also hide behind the corporate veil. are
we willing to go to jail for our part in polluting, where do we draw the line?

we have the choice to be refining the capitalism we are living with today for
something less polluting. decentralization of business and government can be
one kind of refinement. we can be actively involved in that effort by forming
organic coopertive land trust farm network/play systems and forming
bioregional alliances.

No matter what system of government you have,
> though, it's pretty tough to protect yourself from an out-of-control
> large majority. Minorities are always punished in one way or another
> no matter what form of government you have.

there is one way i know of for minorities to be recognized and heard and not
bullied. that is by living off nature more and being less a part of the
system. and being the most intelligent, healthy, and sustainable living
people. thru group consensus efforts we can develop such a group mind
consciousness that it can spiritually uplift locally and globally thru
network/play systems. no male/female dominant hierarchy system can come
close
to consensus in being spiritually effective and aware and protected, at least
that's how i see it.

> Nowadays maybe that could be done. Electric cars were not always an
> option. The production of batteries and electricity is also a
> polluting activity. So is the manufacture of the metal, rubber tires,
> and most of the other structural components of the vehicle that you
> and your friends would be assembling from PURCHASED parts, not
> creating from raw materials -- not unless y'all are a lot more
> talented than I think!

i never said i was perfect, i keep sayin i'm not perfect, you keep pickin on
me for not being perfect. remember what i have been stressing is
refinement in
a step by step fashion. electric is a step up from gas. as an individual i am
pretty busy but i would be interested in exploring astral travel if we had a
support group for exploring it. i would suspect refinement would move pretty
fast with consensus coopertive efforts tho.

> Competition and cooperation are not exclusive alternatives. They can
> co-exist nicely.

i see cooperation as an ongoing refinement stepping away from competition.
f

Subject:
is life just a bowl of cherries????
Date:
Mon, 28 Aug 2000
From:
Forest
>
> Health-mindedness certainly changes one's perspective about pursuing
> the rat race at all costs, doesn't it? One of our M2M'ers last issue
> quoted an imaginary "interview with God," where the interviewer asked
> what puzzled him most about humans. One of the items on the list was,
> "They spend most of their lives destroying their health in pursuit on
> money and the rest of their lives spending it all just trying to get
> their health back."

to spend the rest of our lives exploring refinements in living more naturally
and simply, we can get more wellbeing for the effort alone.

Of
> course, I'm far from perfect and nowhere near as advanced as Forest,
> but making progress.

i'm really not that advanced, just have wild crazy ideas and ideals,when it
comes to recycling you are more advanced, i feel a bit quilty for the garbage
i produce, not much but not recycled. we used to have glass and plastic
recycled in our district but they quit. i would like to find simple ways to
recycle glass, metal, and plastic on the land and make useful items out of
them. could be a recyling cottage industry business if enough were involved.
slow but movin someday. f

Subject:
effectiveness and living simply
Date:
Mon, 28 Aug 2000
From:
Forest

> Bob wrote:
>
> How do you measure effectiveness? In terms of number of people
> reached, books and other media, such as this internet, are much more
> effective than living in a small, ecological community most people
> will never hear about.

well, i guess i am doing a bit of both at the moment, and by the way this one
individual community(family) a lotta people do hear about, i get a constant
stream of curiousity seekers and now and then they settle nearby to "think
it
over".

how do i measure effectiveness? good question. one way would be to live a
life
with the least polluting affect or least karma. this would no doubt be a step
by step process for most and might move faster in a coopertive family
environment.
>
> Having "less impact on the environment" includes less impact on other
> people with your ideas too.

i'm not sure i agree with that, his-story is full of cases where one
individual or small group had major impact on peoples ideas. some of them
were
living in far away places. especially today with techno media, people with
interesting ideas have more opportunity to be seen and heard.

I'm not saying you shouldn't be setting
> an example; this is a very admirable way to live. What I'm
> questioning is its "effectiveness." Scott and Helen Nearing did both
> -- they lived in a mostly self-sufficient environment AND they wrote
> books about it to teach and reach others. I see that as more
> effective than either approach alone.

i agree, that makes sense to me. effectiveness needs to consider the
individual's needs as well as the huWomanities. teaching by example in my
mind
is one of the most ideal ways to be effective individually and socially. and
it affects the spirit as well.

But you should realize that not
> everyone is yet ready to drop all of their upbringing and habits
> immediately and follow the pied piper into unchartered territory.
>
> Bob

that's for sure, i haven't gone that far meself. like lookin for a few needles
in a hay stack, but once one gets the bug, well slow but movin, i like hay
stacks.......

the paradox of this paradigm shift resistance is that there are several
individual idealists out there who don't trust the system and have managed
to
somehow escape the madness enough to talk story on the internet. individual
independance and freedom were goals of some of them because their social
upbringing looked pretty crazy and they wanted out before they got sucked
in.
we all succeeded to different degrees and styles. trouble with all this
independance and freedom is there ain't no family bonding much anymore.
some
people are intelligent to see that and are starting to look into alternative
living arrangements. it's a drop in the bucket in some ways, but the cutting
edge of anything is like the tip of the iceberg. aloha, f

Subject:
Re: monogamy
Date:
Mon, 28 Aug 2000
From:
Forest

jbmc wrote:
> * * * * * * *
>
> Obviously, Mr. Hovila, i have failed to convey
> my message with sufficient enough clarity as to avoid misunderstan-
> dings. The libido i have referred to in my response to Ms. McDonough
> is "that" one, unnaturally produced by the agency of a highly toxic
> dietary regimen - cooked or raw being inconsequential - for the pre-
> cise objective of pleasure. Not to be confused, however, with "that"
> naturally occuring one, annually experienced for a brief period of
> time, for the clear purpose of procreation.

hi jb, any chance you can write this in english, your writing style is a bit
hard to follow or understand. are you saying that on a more ideal diet we only
have sexual drives once a year? i never heard of that one. where do you get
this idea from?
>
> Let me observe, at this junction, that the vast
> majority of us reaching the shores of Dietary Reform, carry with
> ourselves the sweet illusion of somehow preserving our physiological
> dysfunctions whnile adhering to the new natural regimen which, slow-
> ly but surely, works upon their correction.

sounds like yer saying we are incorrect in our position in the universe. how
could that be? i can see some room for improvement or evolution but why
make
it sound like we are making mistakes, evolution is all around us and in us, is
that a mistake?

All too often i have
> witnessed people' dismay at the realization relative to the fading
> away of their libido - and their physical prowess and their psycolo-
> gical aggressiveness and their social competitive performance - whi-
> le engaged in the long process of nearing the full adoption of the
> natural regimen of our Race.

why do you spell race with a capital r? i don't experience libido fading away
when i get more spiritual. what is yer take on the idea of tantra or spiritual
sex.

I have seen some of us backing off to
> Omnivorism in order to recapture the dwindling above features, while
> others settling on a compromised limbo of a corrupted Vegetarianism.

your wording sounds a bit judgemental to me, why, can't we be at all stages
of
evolution within a sense of unconditional love rather than right and wrong.

> All victims of the erroneous assumption - and nonsensical i should
> add - that a sustained dietary return to Nature should not imply a
> concomitant normalization of our physio-neurology, not to the extent,
> at least, of losing certain abnormalities to which we have become
> accustomed, if not outrightly addicted, in the course - and as a re-
> sult - of our millennarian dietetic perversion.

do you always talk like this, it is very confusing to me? victims,
nonsensical, abnormalities, addicted, perversion. i think the people you are
referring to with these words will be alienated by your wording. everything is
good, but may have limitations and we always have choices when we tire of
the
limitations. in the spiritual relms you are eluding to, the beings that reach
those shores would not dialog like this. at what stage would you say you are
at in this quest for spiritual no libido?
>
> I'm afraid this assuption - and the illusion
> which travels with it - is bound to collapse when confronted with
> the verdict of Nature.

you make nature sound like a judge here rather than a beautiful complex
evolving system that probably none of us huWomans will ever understand
completely while in the huWoman body.

The pronouncements of Science and Religion to
> the contrary notwithstanding.

you lost me on this last statement? i still haven't read yer m2m thing, maybe
that would help answer some of these questions i have regarding yer
philosophy
or theory.

Subject:
Re: monogamy
Date:
Tue, 29 Aug 2000
From:
attuner

i agree with forest. you are far from being plain spoken mr. jb. and if
there is no libido as a goal, i am afraid you misunderstand the ONE LAW
that jesus referred to upon which all else hangs. that is the law of the
positive and the negative, the male and the female, the yin and the
yang. we DO live in a dualistic physical universe. to deny our physicality
is a slap in the face of the creator. i would rather in my imperfect
(according to your standard), wild and wooly way be the libidoed man i am.
imagining a perfect world of once a year sex for reproduction seems to be
stultifying and boring. now please don't get me wrong for i agree that we
as a race, small "r", have gone to the other extreme. perhaps you would
agree that the pendulum could swing more towards the once a year ideal, but
that given the way we derive so much pleasure in sexual union when done
lovingly, it can be life enhancing, not necessarily life deadening as you
seem to cryptically suggest.
i am curious. how physical are you? do you exercise vigorously every
day? run? swim? bike ride? etc. what energy do you have to compete in
athletic endeavors if you chose to? can you hike if you had to? don't get
me wrong, but i would rather have the libido thing going so i know i am not
only alive below my waist, but it would undoubtedly go along with my
ability to be strong and healthy physically too. are you truly strong and
healthy in all areas? neil

08/28/2000 , you wrote:
>jbmc@attglobal.net wrote:
> > * * * * * * *
> >
> > Obviously, Mr. Hovila, i have failed to convey
> > my message with sufficient enough clarity as to avoid misunderstan-
> > dings.

Subject:
Re: monogamy
Date:
Tue, 29 Aug 2000
From:
"judy

forest wrote,
>
>hi jb, any chance you can write this in english, your writing style is a
>bit
>hard to follow or understand. are you saying that on a more ideal diet
>
>
Please -- I absolutely love the poetic way that jbmc writes. It is his
style, and it is in a beautifully flowing english which I look forward to
reading whenever I see his posts, and for you to ask him to change his
writing style is like "tarzan meets shakespeare". (Please don't be offended,
its just that I get pictures of all of you people in my mind, and yours
looks like tarzan).
judy

____________________________________________

Subject:
Re: effectiveness and living simply
Date:
Tue, 29 Aug 2000
From:
NoGuile

Living simply, that sounds good Forest!
as you say
< < the paradox of this paradigm shift resistance is that there are several
individual idealists out there who don't trust the system and have managed
to
somehow escape the madness enough to talk story on the internet.
individual
independance and freedom were goals of some of them because their social
upbringing looked pretty crazy and they wanted out before they got sucked
in.
we all succeeded to different degrees and styles. trouble with all this
independance and freedom is there ain't no family bonding much anymore.
some
people are intelligent to see that and are starting to look into alternative
living arrangements. it's a drop in the bucket in some ways, but the cutting
edge of anything is like the tip of the iceberg. aloha, f
>>
Looking at the world at large - how many can have this beautiful opportunity
- simple living? 2/3 of the world lives below poverty level and others just
cannot get off the "rat race".
Western culture and spiritual life has turned off so many, for good reasons
too. Grass always looks greener on the other side like the eastern religions
that have effected our culture nowadays - like the Karma you mentioned.
There
have been great thinkers all right like Chandi and others.
While the world is shaking and suffering like Africa - how many millions are
dying from Aids - somewhat the effect of ignorance and "great freedom" -
polygamy for one. We have this freedom yet under "capitalism" to manipulate
our lives. The ones that have succeeded like Forest, Bob, Heide who have
been
vocal - have the freedom and opportunities to do and thinks. Try to buy a
farm in most countries, not that easy. I have lived under many "isms" and
cultures and religions.
Great freedom and simple life is great, but is this the answer or
possibility for the world? Is there more to life than this or is there
alternatives. What do you think?
In His wonderful joy, Peter

In a message dated 8/29/00, forest writes:

<< > Bob Avery wrote:
>
> How do you measure effectiveness? In terms of number of people
> reached, books and other media, such as this internet, are much more
> effective than living in a small, ecological community most people
> will never hear about.

well, i guess i am doing a bit of both at the moment, and by the way this one
individual community(family) a lotta people do hear about, i get a constant
stream of curiousity seekers and now and then they settle nearby to "think
it
over".

how do i measure effectiveness? good question. one way would be to live a
life
with the least polluting affect or least karma. this would no doubt be a step
by step process for most and might move faster in a coopertive family
environment.
>
> Having "less impact on the environment" includes less impact on other
> people with your ideas too.

i'm not sure i agree with that, his-story is full of cases where one
individual or small group had major impact on peoples ideas. some of them
were
living in far away places. especially today with techno media, people with
interesting ideas have more opportunity to be seen and heard.

I'm not saying you shouldn't be setting
> an example; this is a very adnirable way to live. What I'm
> questioning is its "effectiveness." Scott and Helen Nearing did both
> -- they lived in a mostly self-sufficient environment AND they wrote
> books about it to teach and reach others. I see that as more
> effective than either approach alone.

i agree, that makes sense to me. effectiveness needs to consider the
individual's needs as well as the huWomanities. teaching by example in my
mind
is one of the most ideal ways to be effective individually and socially. and
it affects the spirit as well.

But you should realize that not
> everyone is yet ready to drop all of their upbringing and habits
> immediately and follow the pied piper into unchartered territory.
>
> Bob

that's for sure, i haven't gone that far meself. like lookin for a few
needles
in a hay stack, but once one gets the bug, well slow but movin, i like hay
stacks.......

the paradox of this paradigm shift resistance is that there are several
individual idealists out there who don't trust the system and have managed
to
somehow escape the madness enough to talk story on the internet.
individual
independance and freedom were goals of some of them because their social
upbringing looked pretty crazy and they wanted out before they got sucked
in.
we all succeeded to different degrees and styles. trouble with all this
independance and freedom is there ain't no family bonding much anymore.
some
people are intelligent to see that and are starting to look into alternative
living arrangements. it's a drop in the bucket in some ways, but the cutting
edge of anything is like the tip of the iceberg. aloha, f

Subject:
Re: monogamy/JB's writing
Date:
Tue, 29 Aug 2000
From:
Forest

HFWESSELS wrote:
>
> JB writes his unique way because that who he is...
> and while I may not understand it always,
> or agree with the contents of his writing,
> I certainly would not suggest to him to change it...
>
> I look forward to it and take it as a challenge to growth...
> Love
> Heide
>
i agree heide, jb is free to write in whatever style he prefers, but if he is
trying to share ideas with others, there are ways to be more effective and
clear about it. maybe he is content with confusing us. maybe you are content
with not understanding him, i like to get to the root of things and be clear
about it, that's all. not everybody is like that and that's ok. aloha, f

Subject:
Re: monogamy
Date:
Tue, 29 Aug 2000
From:
Forest

judy wrote:
> >
> Please -- I absolutely love the poetic way that jbmc writes. It is his
> style, and it is in a beautifully flowing english which I look forward to
> reading whenever I see his posts, and for you to ask him to change his
> writing style is like "tarzan meets shakespeare". (Please don't be offended,
> its just that I get pictures of all of you people in my mind, and yours
> looks like tarzan).
> judy

are we here to share poetry with each other, i like to do that, i have some,
but i suspect if i did the topic police would start calling me on it. it may
be beautifully flowing english(i question that) but it is very confusing to
decipher some of it.

i have been around poetic speaking people who can make a clear point or idea
and still be poetic. i just thought if he really wants to share ideas in a
group way, it might be easier to stick with simple terms we are all familiar
with. i do not feel it is a put down so much as a constructive suggestion to
be clearer in making a point. obviosly he can do what he wants, i was really
just tryin to help him be more effective in getting his message across. f

Subject:
Re: monogamy
Date:
Tue, 29 Aug 2000
From:
Forest

judy wrote:

(Please don't be offended,
> its just that I get pictures of all of you people in my mind, and yours
> looks like tarzan).
> judy

why should i be offended, sounds pretty flattering to me. f

Subject:
living simply
Date:
Tue, 29 Aug 2000
From:
Forest

NoGuile wrote:
> >>
> Looking at the world at large - how many can have this beautiful
opportunity
> - simple living? 2/3 of the world lives below poverty level

those poverty folks are living simply, if we could educate them well and let
them continue their simple lives in nature i suspect over time with the
current knowledge of organic agriculture and diet they could outperform us
in
spirit. we could over time meet them out there. i have been living like a king
off and on on an american poverty level since i graduated from high school
and
left home. it hasn't been easy at times, especially those times when i had no
land access.

> Western culture and spiritual life has turned off so many, for good reasons
> too. Grass always looks greener on the other side like the eastern religions
> that have effected our culture nowadays - like the Karma you mentioned.
There
> have been great thinkers all right like Chandi and others.

i don't totally buy into eastern religion but i do honor those who spent so
much time tryin to figure out what nature is all about. jesus was a good
teacher too, he fasted forty days and i never did that. i heard he spent time
in india.

> While the world is shaking and suffering like Africa - how many millions are
> dying from Aids - somewhat the effect of ignorance and "great freedom" -
> polygamy for one.

i agree, africa is a hard place to live i bet, corrupt governments and
business interests.
as bob says, people need to be educated and made aware of all the choices
we
have. as far as aids i have heard many weird conspiracies about how it
spread.
i am still not sure, but i bet on a balanced raw food diet and spiritual
regime one might transcend the effects.

We have this freedom yet under "capitalism" to manipulate
> our lives. The ones that have succeeded like Forest, Bob, Heide who have
been
> vocal - have the freedom and opportunities to do and thinks. Try to buy a
> farm in most countries, not that easy. I have lived under many "isms" and
> cultures and religions.

success is a matter of degrees for all of us.as our crude form of democracy
slowly infiltrates the world dictatorships and monarchies we should start to
see more equal world global land trust access and opportunities, that is
assuming we can reach that level before the ecology falls apart.

> Great freedom and simple life is great, but is this the answer or
> possibility for the world?

it is one of many no doubt, but i feel it is the first one to consider to
relax us enough to access the others.

Is there more to life than this or is there
> alternatives.

probably many alternatives, just be careful to note how they interact with
nature, do they enhance and harmonize it or destroy it? aloha, f

Subject:
Re: monogamy
Date:
Tue, 29 Aug 2000
From:
Forest

jbmc wrote:
> * * * * * * *
>
> In truth, Dr. Neil, i am NOT a stallion. But, then, You
> would have a very difficult time to prove that a stallion fed on
> grains is healthier than a wild horse fed on grass, wouldn't You?
>
> Cordially Yours,
>
> jb Mirabile-caruso.

wild horses fed on grass would have vitality and libido. i suspect they would
be healthier. ones diet should reflect an improvement in overall physical
vitality, if not i would seriously be looking for refinements. i suspect
perhaps that is why we are all here. f

Subject:
Re: intro
Date:
Tue, 29 Aug 2000
From:
Forest

isabella wrote:
>
> Hello rawsome people!
>
> I'm new to the list. I've been trying to go 100% raw
> since last March. For some reason, two weeks has been
> my limit. I get very, very, very frustrated with that.
> Does anybody know what to do when the "craving" comes
> around????
> Peace and Love to ALL!!!!!
>
> Bella.
aloha bella welcome to the list. when craving comes here are some things to
consider: pray to the great spirit for guidance and support, find a way to get
the taste and texture from raw food, find a tree to hug, and seek a healthy
family bond with a close friend. almost all(including me) have the same
struggles. easier said than done, best wishes, f

Subject:
Re: twisted bro/apology
Date:
Tue, 29 Aug 2000
From:
Forest

someone wrote:
>
> man, can you believe how you are a regular pro at twisting things
> around? first you assail paul. now, all of a sudden, you are mr. nice
> guy to him and explain it away about being "annoyed," and by golly,
> it's all due to public tv. gee, so sorry you out there on the farm
> with all those labels of products you still consume getting annoyed.
> how annoying to read how tough it is for you on your island.

i never attacked assailed paul personally. if you look back to the beginning
of that thread i was very diplomatic and polite to him. i just have an
aversion to repeated advertisements, i am not the only one.

> then, you publicly assail me, call me a liar, state as if fact
> again, "never sent me one private email about anything".

you never sent anything regarding following the listowner rules.

i send you
> proof of that untruth last night PRIVATELY AGAIN , and then today
> almost true to form, you get off on this public forum. what is the
> matter with you? it's a darn good thing you then apologized forest.

for what it is worth i sincerely meant to send that email to you privately, i
was running low on solar power and computer was about to crash and in my
haste
i forgot to check the address. i actually thought it was addressed to you
cause i had done the letter twice lost it the first time and had to rewrite
again.

> you may be pathological and certifiable in the way you seem to talk a
> mean streak, but then your public actions show just how inconsiderate
> you really are. and i say this not just to defend myself personally.
> there is perhaps a lesson here you may wish to learn from: since i
> have been designated the substitute moderator/list owner in jr's
> absence, i am privy to emails that other people have written me
> regarding you. they have left the list specifically because i have let
> you continue without censorship since you've come on board in may.

i bet for as many who left there are many more who are stimulated by some
of
the discussion more inclusive of a "whole"istic approach to raw foods and
health.

my
> problem has been that the private emails to you were not just because
> i personally felt netiquette demanded it.

yer private emails had nothin to do with netiquette, are you living in denial
or what?

it was because i as a "list
> moderator" was responsible for what was going on with people privately
> complaining and unsubscribing. i tried to handle it the best way i
> knew how which was sending my emails personally and privately so you
> would be spared hurt feelings if you truly knew how some others felt.

you didn't send me private emails pertaining to netiqette.

i already knew how some felt and they were being pretty immature about it
and
others besides me noticed it and commented. and it wasn't just me
discussing
the topics in question.

> so yes, while it was personal on my part and the lines got blurry, it
> was also to protect my friend jr's list from your particular style of
> 'listing' that really turned some people off. that was a primary
> reason why i said i was hoping you would leave peacefully several
> weeks ago when you felt some of this.

i think there are a lotta intelligent people who appreciate the discussions i
have been involved in even when we don't agree. bob avery in particular. if a
particular subject or individual bothers someone
they can delete. they are free to discuss subjects they feel are more
relevant. we could even have a code for subject matter to more easily
recognize subject matter.

i privately showed
> you that it WAS rude of you, to say the least, to report publicly that
> i didn't "ever once send a private email about anything."

if one looks at the context of that statement one can conclude that it is in
reference to reprimands. in my previous emails to the list i already metioned
to you and the list i recieved a couple private emails from you, but they had
no reference to a reprimand.

if i sent
> you a private email about your mother, it was at least once more than
> never. so i sent one about jb. why you then slam me AGAIN PUBLICLY
> after you know this,

not sure what yer sayin here, i didn't get specific about what you said, i
just needed a way to reference.

and also demand an apology after last nights
> private email, shows me you are definitely one person i would never
> trust again.

i still think an apology is in order, but i am not attached to it. it will
however affect how much trust i have for you or how honest i feel you are to
me and yerself.

but like i said to you in last nights email, never say
> never. so let me rephrase that: after last night and today, you have
> proven to me that you are one person that i would not trust.

i don't understand yer feelings here.

the fact
> that you have followed with an apology i sincerely appreciate and
> truly respect. thank you from my heart. but i still would not trust
> you. after last night and today, i know you have betrayed it. consider
> that personal.

well you are entitled to your opinion.

> however, as the temporary list moderator, what i would
> respectfully ask of you as i mentioned earlier, is to please consider
> how others have already left the list because of you and to VERY
> carefully consider how and what you write, even if and when "annoyed",
> so as to not chase away any more folks. please. thank you.

i agree to this last statement and request and i would ask the same of you. i
feel i have been more diplomatic and polite in general than you in tense
moments. i sincerely regret posting that email to the list and will be more
careful in the future. i really don't think others left because of me, they
have difficulties discussing certain topics and are so afraid that they want
to stop others as well knowing full well they can delete. it is a sad state of
affairs when that happens. it is like religious or government censorship of
ideas. aloha and peace, f

Subject:
Re: living simply
Date:
Tue, 29 Aug 2000
From:
NoGuile

Hi Forest, I got to be impressed, then you too are one of the survivors. Like
Heide was telling us about her interesting past. A harder earlier life can
produce really thinking people.
Thanks for your comments and I seem to agree about most of your
comments.
Looks like we have good and interesting people here - glad to hear and learn
on different ideas from this list.
All in His joy, Peter

In a message dated 8/29/00, forest writes:

<< NoGuile wrote:
> >>
> Looking at the world at large - how many can have this beautiful
opportunity
> - simple living? 2/3 of the world lives below poverty level

those poverty folks are living simply, if we could educate them well and let
them continue their simple lives in nature i suspect over time with the
current knowledge of organic agriculture and diet they could outperform us
in
spirit. we could over time meet them out there. i have been living like a
king
off and on on an american poverty level since i graduated from high school
and
left home. it hasn't been easy at times, especially those times when i had no
land access.

> Western culture and spiritual life has turned off so many, for good
reasons
> too. Grass always looks greener on the other side like the eastern
religions
> that have effected our culture nowadays - like the Karma you mentioned.
There
> have been great thinkers all right like Chandi and others.

i don't totally buy into eastern religion but i do honor those who spent so
much time tryin to figure out what nature is all about. jesus was a good
teacher too, he fasted forty days and i never did that. i heard he spent time
in india.

> While the world is shaking and suffering like Africa - how many millions
are
> dying from Aids - somewhat the effect of ignorance and "great freedom" -
> polygamy for one.

i agree, africa is a hard place to live i bet, corrupt governments and
business interests.
as bob says, people need to be educated and made aware of all the choices
we
have. as far as aids i have heard many weird conspiracies about how it
spread.
i am still not sure, but i bet on a balanced raw food diet and spiritual
regime one might transcend the effects.

We have this freedom yet under "capitalism" to manipulate
> our lives. The ones that have succeeded like Forest, Bob, Heide who have
been
> vocal - have the freedom and opportunities to do and thinks. Try to buy a
> farm in most countries, not that easy. I have lived under many "isms" and
> cultures and religions.

success is a matter of degrees for all of us.as our crude form of
democracy
slowly infiltrates the world dictatorships and monarchies we should start to
see more equal world global land trust access and opportunities, that is
assuming we can reach that level before the ecology falls apart.

> Great freedom and simple life is great, but is this the answer or
> possibility for the world?

it is one of many no doubt, but i feel it is the first one to consider to
relax us enough to access the others.

Is there more to life than this or is there
> alternatives.

probably many alternatives, just be careful to note how they interact with
nature, do they enhance and harmonize it or destroy it? aloha, f

Subject:
Re: the best things in life are free
Date:
Tue, 29 Aug 2000
From:
Bob

Forest wrote,

>you are correct in those cultures use of money but at the same time many
more
>tribal societies were less money based and more trade based. interesting
that
>you mention those cultures. am starting to see that money is more a part
of
>centralized governments and cultures.

Non-major cultures used things like beads, seashells, or other perceived
items of value within their
cultures. Money is a useful concept, so there are forms of it everywhere.

>do you think people who drive in gas polluting cars and jets should be held
>accountable for their actions or does it just pertain to corporations. that is
>what i am tryin to point out, we are all to one degree or another "buying into
>a polluting system". do we have choices? yes

Yes, all of us, myself included.

>what about us individuals, we are also guilty by our participation to one
>degree or another. we as individuals also hide behind the corporate veil. are
>we willing to go to jail for our part in polluting, where do we draw the line?

Very few individuals are incorporated, so there is no "corporate veil" for
them to hide behind. In the
case of pollution, legal reforms would be needed. In order for that to happen,
it's going to take a lot of
people to agree that they ARE needed, or they won't happen. It certainly
can't happen overnight.
People aren't going to just wake up one morning and trash all of their
automobiles because they pollute.
And people aren't going to be able to sue other people for wrecking their
breathing space. This is going
to require gradual evolution and awakening on a large scale.

>we can be actively involved in that effort by forming
>organic coopertive land trust farm network/play systems and forming
>bioregional alliances.

Whatever that means. I don't fully understand it.

>there is one way i know of for minorities to be recognized and heard and not
>bullied. that is by living off nature more and being less a part of the
system.

That may work if you're lucky. If you're not, the bullies will come after you
anyway (such as NASA
building a launch pad on Naalehu or your whole island being blown up in some
nuclear "test" or
accident).

>i never said i was perfect, i keep sayin i'm not perfect, you keep pickin on
>me for not being perfect.

Well, that's fair, isn't it? Aren't you picking on all of us for not being
perfect?

>remember what i have been stressing is refinement in a step by step
fashion.

I think we are in agreement about this.

>i see cooperation as an ongoing refinement stepping away from
competition. f

Eliminating competition altogether might not be the healthiest approach. I
don't know for sure though.

Bob

Subject:
Re: the best things in life are free
Date:
Wed, 30 Aug 2000
From:
Forest

> Bob wrote:
>
> Non-major cultures used things like beads, seashells, or other
> perceived items of value within their cultures. Money is a useful
> concept, so there are forms of it everywhere.

i agree, but the current system we are buying into is radically different than
using beads, etc. for money

>
> Very few individuals are incorporated, so there is no "corporate veil"
> for them to hide behind.

what i meant by hiding behing a corporate veil is we as individuals tend to
blame corporations for the mess we are in while ignoring our own
participation.

In the case of pollution, legal reforms
> would be needed. In order for that to happen, it's going to take a
> lot of people to agree that they ARE needed, or they won't happen. It
> certainly can't happen overnight. People aren't going to just wake up
> one morning and trash all of their automobiles because they pollute.
> And people aren't going to be able to sue other people for wrecking
> their breathing space. This is going to require gradual evolution and
> awakening on a large scale.

another way besides laws to ecourage others to change is the concept of
having
more examples of less polluting lifestyles available as options to consider.
consensus land trust farms seems like a logical option to me. i agree it will
be a slow process no matter what.
>
> >we can be actively involved in that effort by forming
> >organic coopertive land trust farm network/play systems and forming
> >bioregional alliances.
>
> Whatever that means. I don't fully understand it.

what i mean is if we get together with friends and work/play at coopertively
reducing our levels of pollution we can uplift our spirits while at the same
time being better examples of what we believe in. others who see the
example
may form a similar trust in some other bioregion and we could network/play
with each other and have a broader influence and support.
>
> >there is one way i know of for minorities to be recognized and heard
> and not
> >bullied. that is by living off nature more and being less a part of
> the system.
>
> That may work if you're lucky.

in my mind there is no such thing as luck, it all boils down to intent and
karma in my mind anyway.

If you're not, the bullies will come
> after you anyway (such as NASA building a launch pad on Naalehu or
> your whole island being blown up in some nuclear "test" or accident).

i believe in a consensus coopertive there would always be solutions to
problems no matter how severe. i believe the spitit of consensus is capable
of
working miracles if one really has the faith and determination. even if death
is the outcome the spirit of the group or individuals could live on. how's
that for pie in the sky idealism, or should i say watermelon in the sky
idealism? :-)
>
> >i never said i was perfect, i keep sayin i'm not perfect, you keep
> pickin on
> >me for not being perfect.
>
> Well, that's fair, isn't it? Aren't you picking on all of us for not
> being perfect?

no i am not picking on ya'll for not being perfect, rather i am trying to
point out how we are all contributing to pollution by our actions. i think
that i have made that clear from the start by including meself and remaining
humble about it. my goal here is not to pick on ya'll, but rather to inspire
some coopertive effort to improve the situation. i do see us all in the mess
together to one degree or another. f

Subject:
Re: the best things in life are free
Date:
Wed, 30 Aug 2000
From:
Bob

Forest wrote,

>i agree, but the current system we are buying into is radically different
than
>using beads, etc. for money

True. It's corrupt, but until we can get others to see it our way, we still have
to deal with it.

>what i meant by hiding behing a corporate veil is we as individuals tend to
>blame corporations for the mess we are in while ignoring our own
participation.

Hmm. That's not the normal meaning of that terminology. I find jbmc easier
to understand.

>consensus land trust farms seems like a logical option to me.

Sure -- whatever they are exactly.

>what i mean is if we get together with friends and work/play at coopertively
>reducing our levels of pollution we can uplift our spirits while at the same
>time being better examples of what we believe in. others who see the
example
>may form a similar trust in some other bioregion and we could network/play
>with each other and have a broader influence and support.

Sure, I agree that cooperation is good. It's just that "cooperative consensus
land trust farms" sounds like
some sort of quasi-legal terminology I don't understand.

>> That may work if you're lucky.
>
>in my mind there is no such thing as luck, it all boils down to intent and
>karma in my mind anyway.

Well, I hope you are right. It's comforting to think we have control over our
destinies. Makes you
wonder though what negative karma innocent babies had that caused them to
get vaporized at Heroshima
and Nagasaki.

>i believe in a consensus coopertive there would always be solutions to
>problems no matter how severe. i believe the spitit of consensus is capable
of
>working miracles if one really has the faith and determination. even if death
>is the outcome the spirit of the group or individuals could live on. how's
>that for pie in the sky idealism, or should i say watermelon in the sky
>idealism? :-)

Sure, it's a comforting belief system.

>no i am not picking on ya'll for not being perfect, rather i am trying to
>point out how we are all contributing to pollution by our actions. i think
>that i have made that clear from the start by including meself and
remaining
>humble about it. my goal here is not to pick on ya'll, but rather to inspire
>some coopertive effort to improve the situation. i do see us all in the mess
>together to one degree or another. f

Well, I wasn't trying to "pick on" you either. Just that you come across as
"holier than thou" at times,
which makes people wonder whether you think are perfect or have all the
answers.

Bob

Subject:
Re: the best things in life are free
Date:
Wed, 30 Aug 2000
From:
Forest

> Bob wrote:
>
> Hmm. That's not the normal meaning of that terminology. I find jbmc
> easier to understand.

i had a good laugh on that one. :-) i read jb in the m2m, it was pretty easy
to understand, that one email tho was really overdone in my mind.
>
> Sure, I agree that cooperation is good. It's just that "cooperative
> consensus land trust farms" sounds like some sort of quasi-legal
> terminology I don't understand.

there is a legal approach to land trust with legal papers. the trust can be
set up with a consensus board of directors or overseers. in can contain
covenants that the group agrees on such as organic farming, etc. it could
also
be a 501c3 educational non profit and be elegible for grants for ecology,
farming, and health education matters. as a non profit trust outside land
holders could donate their land to the trust and not pay taxes and live on the
land. there are many kinds of land trusts with various types of advantages
to
the typical land owner concepts. there is an email discussion list on land
trusts.

> Well, I hope you are right. It's comforting to think we have control
> over our destinies. Makes you wonder though what negative karma
> innocent babies had that caused them to get vaporized at Heroshima and
> Nagasaki.

i have had this discussion with many people. if we believe in past lives it is
not to far a stretch to imagine that a warrior who fought in battle killing
women and children might end up on the other end of the stick in the next
life
to balance the karma. i have an intuitive feeling of being a european american
frontier man in a previous life guiding europeans into territories inhabited
by native americans who as a result were forced to leave their homelands. in
another life later i intuitively sense i spent a life as a native american
chief and being pushed and shoved out of my homeland. see how karma might
operate? it's hard to totally trust the intuition but when balanced with the
practical intellectual brain it just might help us learn more about our
spiritual nature. i have had enough syncronistic events in this life to be
pretty open to exploring intuitive feelings. testing one two.....
>
> Well, I wasn't trying to "pick on" you either. Just that you come
> across as "holier than thou" at times, which makes people wonder
> whether you think are perfect or have all the answers.
>
> Bob

i will try to get more in touch with the factors that cause me to come across
as holier than thou. i get excited in some discussions and talk like what i
say is fact rather than opinion, but i have been making efforts and
comments
all along to indicate my limits and imperfections. i actually think i am doing
pretty good but i will try for more. aloha, f

Subject:
Re: electric radiant heat
Date:
Thu, 31 Aug 2000
From:
Forest

HFWESSELS wrote:

...so when I get to
> build my house I will make sure to do it right.
> Heide

i admire women who wanna build their own house, go for it and send us a
picture. f

Subject:
Re: weightloss & menstruation
Date:
Fri, 01 Sep 2000
From:
Forest

Coya wrote:
>
> Yes, I too stopped menstruation and lost a lot of weight. The theory is
that
> menstruation is not normal and only occurs with a toxic body--people who
are
> raw and stopped menstruation still got pregnant- Ruth

athletes who eat some degree sad diet but maintain a low body fat(less than
10% if i remember right) also reduce or stop menstration or so i read once
somewhere. f

Subject:
Re: tantric sex
Date:
Fri, 01 Sep 2000
From:
Forest

eck wrote:

.What on
> earth is tantric sex.. Also i thought it was time to add a few different
> topics to the rawfoods ...Not exactly raw foods but it certainly sounds
> spiritual and natural and thats enough for me and if it involves some sort
> of meditation then i,m very interested..Cheers Eck...

aloha eck, i am not an expert on tantra but i have completed a level one
course in tantra put on by tantrika international. tantric sex is a form of
spiritual sex in which a male and female engage in sex for the main purpose
of
exploring their spiritual nature, together with the idea of transending
polarity by joining two male and female polarities together to become one.

it involves a rather simple but elaborate system of physical exercises and
breathing exercises along with mental projections. anyone could do it but it
takes a lotta practice and dedication and getting along well with the mate.

some of the main differences in tantra over normal sex is that the male is
taught to postpone orgasm so that the male and female may slowly come to
the
same place of orgasmic energy at the same time. this takes effort from
both
partners since to have the right desired outcome requires a syncronized
orchestrated effort. it is said that at the point orgasm starts to build
certain exercises are practised that enable both partners to rise the sexual
energy from the lower sex chakra higher and higher while at the same time
removing the vital life energy from the male and female fluids until at the
point of orgasm the energies under ideal circumstances will allow them to
have
a trancendant experience called samahdi in which they become one and
experience the universe from a new unified unpolarized perspective. the
orgasm
is experienced as vitalizing instead of devitalizing since the energies in the
body fluids are recirculated and not lost.

that's the general idea anyway, it goes on and on from there like multiple
male and female orgasm. it is said one can reach tantra states alone but it
usually requires much more time and lots of spiritual dicipline.

i don't have a lotta background reading on the subject but so far the best
book i have read on the subject is "jewel in the lotus" by sunyata saraswati
and bodhi avinasha. i also recomend their courses which are conducted
worldwide in various major cities. if you have 15 or 20 friends in a
neighborhood or region that are interested they may come to your area upon
request. it is expensive to go thru all three courses but one can't put a
price on spiritual development in my mind. aloha, f

Subject:
Re: food and karma
Date:
Fri, 01 Sep 2000
From:
Forest

Gary wrote:
>
> I know that people have different beliefs, but is karma really a good way
> to determine what to eat? Does karma apply only to humans?

hi gary, karma is only usefull if you choose to buy into it as a real thing.
it relates to how and why we refine our interactions with nature and each
other. the goal is to refine those interactions in such a way as to be more
non-violent and more harmonious and loving with nature. it is said that thru
the process of refining our level of karma we become more spiritual and
loving
people. from my limited perspective karma is a very important consideration
in
exploring diet and life. the saying you are what you eat, hints to a karmic
relationship with food. fruitarianism is said to be the most karma free diet.
i hope to explore that ideal someday. karma is a very controversial subject in
relation to spiritual unfoldment and is debated in many circles.

Subject:
Re: electric radiant heat/new house
Date:
Fri, 01 Sep 2000
From:
Forest

HFWESSELS wrote:

> I have cut my teeth on renovating several houses....a new house from
scratch
> would be a different story....Heide

whatever, renovating is a challenge too, you sound like the kinda women that
others need to learn from. i think more women would be builders if building
were taught from a more gentle perspective. like building without hammers,
saws, etc. (the male conquer nature approach.) instead building with rocks
and
dirt and grass and such in a quiet harmonious low stress way. the native
american plains tribe women were responsible for setting up and taking down
the tipis. women in africa build houses of mud together while they sing and
laugh with each other. aloha f

Subject:
Re: intro/lethargy
Date:
Fri, 01 Sep 2000
From:
Forest

Michelle wrote:

hoping things
> will change once i'm in hawaii. does anyone else experience lethargy? all
> i every hear from raw foodists is an amazing boost in energy...i never had
> the pleasure of experiencing this!

hi michelle sister, i think we all experience some degree of lethargy at times
no matter what diet. a lot of the time i think it is in relation to the karma
and stress of our lifestyles or the lack of spirit in family and bonding
issues. if we do not deal with these and other energy factors in our lives the
best diet in the world will still be limiting our energy.

keep in mind there is a term in hawaii called "hawaii time". it may make your
challenge with lethargy extra challenging.

i have written extensively on how to live more naturally as consensus
extended
families, as a way to more vitality and spirituality. if you are interested i
could send some info to check out on those subjects. aloha and peace, f

Subject:
Re: lethargy,going against the "grain"
Date:
Fri, 01 Sep 2000
From:
Forest

> Alan wrote:
>
> For now I will just talk about grains in reference to Doct Doug
> Grahams book grain damage. Grains should not be eatin in any form even
> sprouted except for wheat grass grown in soil then it is grass and no
> longer a grain. I have heard now so many times and again on this list
> today that fruit causes problems the real problem is grains and or
> cooked foods. Grains have many bad bacteria and funguses on them like
> candida. When you eat fruit the grain induced candida feast on the
> fruit sugar and then create toxins making it appear that fruit is no
> good. The real problem is grains. I myself eat no grains of any
> kind,eat tons of fruit, and along with a super low fat diet with no
> liquid oils has given me an incredible engery boost. The natural food
> and energy source for our brains and muscles is fruit sugar. So go
> against the grain and get rid of them and see the results for
> yourself.

you made some good points here, i agree it is grains combined with fruits
that
feed hypoglycemia and candida conditions, sugar alone without binging over
time energizes. aloha, f

Subject:
Re: Life
Date:
Sun, 3 Sep 2000
From:
"eck"

very well said Forrest, i would of thought enlightenment was a health issue
i certainly was enlightened by this subject and not once did i see it as a
perverted topic , it anything a very beautiful one, and certainly without
doubt somthing that i most certainly would like to experience, sorry if that
offends anyone but we must speak from our hearts to be truely free..Erica

-----Original Message-----
From: Forest <forest@wics.net>
To: rawlife@rawtimes.com <rawlife@rawtimes.com>
Date: Sunday, 3 September 2000 2:27
Subject: Re: Life

>Eeb1956@gateway.net wrote:
>>
>> I am very disappointed at times, disagreements with alot of yek-yak, sex,
>> sex,and yik-yak.
>
forest responds: >hi ellen, what is the real issue that is disappointing you? i
do not
>understand. do you have some unresolved issues around sex, most of us
do?
how
>do you feel about the concept of "whole"istic wellness? can you see how the
>human body, mind, spirit, is a complex thing not dependant on food alone
for
>sustanence or optimum health? why does it bother you to diverge a bit
from
the
>topic of raw
>food? do you feel your belief systems are threatened by discussions of
certain
>health topics? why do you have a problem with disagreement if it is done in
a
>diplomatic way? if you wish for more discussion on food only why don't you
>initiate some discussion rather than complaining to those who diverge a
bit?
>have you ever considered deleting subject matter you find irrevelant or
>inappropriate or consider seriously debating the issue of staying on the
topic
>of raw foods only? i find the most intelligent folks on this list all seem
to
>enjoy some degree of the off topic discussions while still adding important
>comments on raw foods. do you see how the concept of links fills in missing
>ideas sometimes that are crucial to the subject of raw foods?
>
> Please can we get back in to focus and get our priorities
>> back on target.
>
>just exactly what would you like to talk about? what is it you would like
to
>know? why don't you ask some questions relating to that? this is the first
>time i saw yer name here. are you mainly a listener, if so why? do i ask
too
>many questions, sorry i just wanna make you happy and still be able to
diverge
>now and then from raw foods without offending anyone cause i feel it is
>crucial to all our health.
>
> Lets help each other with the living in a more healthy way,
>> raw diet, where to get the foods and supplys that we each need. Happy
day
>> to all. Ellen
>
>yes, let's help each other with the living in a more healthy way(i thought
we
>were doing that all along), raw diet, where to get foods and supplys that
we
>each need. what foods and supplys are you looking for? aloha and peace, f
>

Subject:
Re: tantric sex
Date:
Sat, 02 Sep 2000
From:
Forest

> Bob wrote:
>
> How does this happen? No ejaculation?

bob, i am quoting from the book, "jewel in the lotus" here.

the tantric masters knew that when a secret kundalini pranayam (cosmic
cobra
breath) is practised, the life force in the sperm and vaginal secretions could
be extracted, retained in the body to vitalize and rejuvinate the system, and
projected to the brain to awaken its sleeping potential.

in the sexual ritual (kundalini maithuna) you can utilize the sexual
secretions of the bodies. by using the tantric breathing and positions you can
extract hormone rich filtrates from the blood by psychic milking of the
vaginal dew and semen, pulling their life producing energies into the cerebro
spinal fluid. once that energy had been extracted, you don't lose any vital
force in orgasm.

so yes, there is ejaculation, but not of life force energies.

sounds pretty wild and crazy i know, i am still having some trouble buying
into it all, but wanna give it a lotta time to make sure i am not too hasty in
judging it. i have also been meditating on the idea that the "new age" with
women's liberation and all may affect the traditional concepts of tantra. i
have already found some areas of doubt that seem to make tantra outdated
in
some ways but don't wanna be too critical in the beginning stages. i do think
there are lots of clues to life extension and quality in tantra. aloha, f

Subject:
Re: Natural house
Date:
Sat, 02 Sep 2000
From:
Forest

HFWESSELS wrote:
>
> Hello Forest-
> I think every woman should not only have "a room of her own" but a house
of
> her own.

i agree, in the ideals i pursue in coopertive land trust each individual would
have individual space(house) of their own balanced with shared buildings and
space. i
feel the same way about growing raw foods(notice how i am trying to keep
this
on topic :-) ). i think it is good have an individual garden space and also a
group garden space. the balance between individualism and consensus
coopertive
interaction.

Subject:
Re: Life
Date:
Sat, 02 Sep 2000
From:
Forest

Eeb1956 wrote:
>
> I am very disappointed at times, disagreements with alot of yek-yak, sex,
> sex,and yik-yak.

hi ellen, what is the real issue that is disappointing you? i do not
understand. do you have some unresolved issues around sex, most of us do?
how
do you feel about the concept of "whole"istic wellness? can you see how the
human body, mind, spirit, is a complex thing not dependant on food alone for
sustanence or optimum health? why does it bother you to diverge a bit from
the
topic of raw
food? do you feel your belief systems are threatened by discussions of
certain
health topics? why do you have a problem with disagreement if it is done in a
diplomatic way? if you wish for more discussion on food only why don't you
initiate some discussion rather than complaining to those who diverge a bit?
have you ever considered deleting subject matter you find irrevelant or
inappropriate or consider seriously debating the issue of staying on the topic
of raw foods only? i find the most intelligent folks on this list all seem to
enjoy some degree of the off topic discussions while still adding important
comments on raw foods. do you see how the concept of links fills in missing
ideas sometimes that are crucial to the subject of raw foods?

Please can we get back in to focus and get our priorities
> back on target.

just exactly what would you like to talk about? what is it you would like to
know? why don't you ask some questions relating to that? this is the first
time i saw yer name here. are you mainly a listener, if so why? do i ask too
many questions, sorry i just wanna make you happy and still be able to
diverge
now and then from raw foods without offending anyone cause i feel it is
crucial to all our health.

Lets help each other with the living in a more healthy way,
> raw diet, where to get the foods and supplys that we each need. Happy
day
> to all. Ellen

yes, let's help each other with the living in a more healthy way(i thought we
were doing that all along), raw diet, where to get foods and supplys that we
each need. what foods and supplys are you looking for? aloha and peace, f

Subject:
Re: Unnatural Selection: Survivor, Eugenics and Big Brother
Date:
Sat, 02 Sep 2000
From:
Forest

hi bob, thanks for the interesting article. i am right in the middle of
watching "survivor" with a group of raw fooders at a neighbors house. she
has
video tapes so we can get fast thru the comercials altho some of the
comercials portray a pretty scarey picture of the mass conciousness that i
sometimes lose reality of out here as your article also pointed out.

alto i agree with the author that "survivor" is really a negative
hollywoodized game show for voyerism type people, however i none the less
find
it a
very fascinating psychological overview of where mainstream consciousness
is
at. i am addicted to it. pretty scarey.

i do have some questions about the eugenics discussion. i have some intuitive
sense for a survival of the fittest natural approach to living in nature,
simialar to animals. it seems to keep the genes strong to survive in the
natural world. to have a world full of medicated couch patatoes seems
dangerous to me. i would never suggest killing them, but i think they need to
be educated somehow and offered choices. until that happens, i am not sure
how
many i would wanna adopt into a tribe if it came down to a world catastophe
and lives were at stake and few would survive. aloha, f

> Bob Avery wrote:
>
> Unnatural Selection: Survivor, Eugenics and Big Brother
>

Subject:
re:life,forest
Date:
Sat, 2 Sep 2000
From:
"Alan

Forest

Very fine post forest, do you think that living in hawaii has any influence on
the quality of your writitng,
you sound very content, at ease and mellowed out : ) If we just talk about
raw foods and where to get
them there wouldnt be much to say and there is much more to healthy
balanced living then just diet and
I want to hear it all.I just got off of the living foods bb if you want ot see
negativity go there. This place is
very peacefull and I love it.

Alan, 100% raw for life.

Subject:
Date:
Sat, 02 Sep 2000
From:
"Michelle

Michelle wrote:

hoping things will change once i'm in hawaii. does anyone else experience
lethargy?

hi forest. please - call me by my first name. i know the last name is a
little "out of the ordinary". i agree with you about our energy levels
being closely related to what's going on in our lives - stress, work,
dicontentment, etc. new york city has really dragged me down over the last
couple years and i've been in a work situation in which i've "sold my soul"
to pay off debt. so to a certain extent the lethargy is understandable.
thus, why i think my new life in hawaii is going to help (i hope!)

i am very much interested in natural, simple, community living. that's
where my life is finally moving towards now. i've waited a long time for
this. so please, send me any information on those subjects...

i'll be living at Manulani, a couple doors down from Pangaia. i have to
look on the map to see where naalehu is...

thanks for your thoughts,
michelle

Subject:
Re: tantric sex
Date:
Sat, 2 Sep 2000
From:
Bob

Forest wrote,

"in the sexual ritual (kundalini maithuna) you can utilize the sexual
secretions of the bodies. by using the tantric breathing and positions you can
extract hormone rich filtrates from the blood by psychic milking of the
vaginal dew and semen, pulling their life producing energies into the cerebro
spinal fluid. once that energy had been extracted, you don't lose any vital
force in orgasm. "

Amazing!

>i do think there are lots of clues to life extension and quality in tantra.
aloha, f

Keep me abreast of any discoveries.

Bob

Subject:
Re: Life
Date:
Sun, 03 Sep 2000
From:
"judy

Forest, Erica...

>very well said Forrest, i would of thought enlightenment was a health issue
>i certainly was enlightened by this subject and not once did i see it as a
>perverted topic , it anything a very beautiful one, and certainly without
>doubt somthing that i most certainly would like to experience, sorry if
>that
>offends anyone but we must speak from our hearts to be truely free..Erica
>
Forest, Erica, et al,
Yes, thank you for saying that so well. The subject of raw food certainly
overlaps many other subjects, sex being one of them, and we are all adults
here, so don't understand why anyone considers it a problem to talk about
it. Its no different than talking about raw food in relation to any other
condition of the human body.
By the way, a group hug goes out to all of you who sent in all the very
helpful comments when I was going through the monogamy issue with my
boyfriend. Him and I talked, I found there was much more power in staying
calm and collected rather than being angry and violent. He still denies it,
so I gave him the benefit of the doubt, and we're doing ok. It helped me
very much to get all the messages from this "tribe", so thank you all. My
original question, which was asking whether monogamy or polygamy was
natural
for humans...well, I still don't know the answer! The conclusion I came to
was, that humans are so complicated, that even in a perfect all-raw world,
it could go any which way.

judy

Subject:
grains of truth
Date:
Sat, 02 Sep 2000
From:
Forest

Robin wrote:
>
> When the earth is sick and the animals are dying there will come a tribe
> of peoples from all cultures who believe in words and actions who will
> restore this earth to her former beauty. This tribe will be known as The
> Warriors of The Rainbow.

we don't have to wait, animals are dying already, let's get the tribe together
now, there is a consensus land trust process that will take time and effort,
we are used to living in a money based life away from nature rather than a
nature based life away from money matters. it is a huge effort and
challenge,
the sooner we start the example the sooner we will experience the wellness
connected to it. aloha, f

Subject:
Re: re.....life
Date:
Sat, 02 Sep 2000
From:
Forest

eck wrote:

> I think you are all beautiful people and i am very happy to be part of the
> tribe..eck (Erica )

i second that emotion. f

Subject:
Re: tantric sex
Date:
Sat, 02 Sep 2000
From:
Forest

eck wrote:

..I do beleive that not everyone would be so fortunate
> to have a partner that they can find this beautiful connection with but for
> those who have it , this sort of practice , I am so sure would only enhance
> your love.

yes, finding a partner may be as elusive as the outcome(not sure that's the
proper word here :-). i had a partner for awhile but we had different
lifestyles and preferences and energy levels, now i'm back in hermit mode.
the
practical exercises sound easy and simple, but to find one true friend in life
is worth more than words can say or money can buy. and in today's modern
world
where money comes first and friendship
second, it will only be when we cooperate on land trusts in nature that we
will have the time and energy to put friendship first and money and all it
buys(food, etc.) second. let's get together and feel all right. aloha, f

Subject:
Re: Life
Date:
Sat, 02 Sep 2000
From:
Forest

Coya wrote:

--I tend to eat at
> night when I am bored--even if I am not hungry--there is more to life I just
> have not found it yet.

what is yer family situation? i feel most of us are dieing because we lack
consensus family bonding with each other and nature. i am looking for
consensus land trust partners so that i can eat less and love more. aloha, f

Subject:
Re: tantric sex
Date:
Sat, 02 Sep 2000
From:
Forest

attuner wrote:
>
> back in the 70's i practised tantra sex.

why did you quit?

what was very cool was the ability
> to picture my beloved, even when not physically with her, and through this
> mystical, magical process, go into an inner explosion of orgasmic energy.

what kind of mystical magical process did you use?

> it was just as good as physically having intercourse, but there was no
> physical reality involved. all on the inner planes. it was also great of
> course when we did make love together in the more traditional way. but to
> experience the ecstasy of orgasm solo without any fluid messes or need to
> even touch oneself was certainly a revelation. it was still fun by myself,
> altho it usually takes two to tango which will be my preference. neil

first you say it was just as good alone and then at the end say you prefer
having a physical partner. do you still do it alone? do you still do it with a
partner? how did you prevent the fluid messes? could you elaborate on the
type
of tantra you practiced or practice? f

Subject:
Re: Neil attends World Peace Summit of Religious and
Spiritual Leaders at the U.N./ true holistic MD's
Date:
Sat, 02 Sep 2000
From:
Forest

attuner wrote:

there are supposedly less than
> 1/10th. of 1% of m.d.'s who are holistic in the whole country. this
> unfortunately makes them a rare handful, and i am fortunate in saying
> i have worked with some of them.

i agree neil, there are a few real md's out there who are tryin to be lookin
at holism. i had a medical doctor partner here years ago, we were so
different
in so many ways but shared some common ground. unfortunately he died, or
some
of the earth releaf ideals might be a bit more developed.

the truly holistic ones are spiritual
> people and orient first in the more subtle divine realms and look
> there as the true cause of health problems that then eventually
> manifests physically. at least that's what i believe.

i think people in general first orient in the physical and later or
simultaniously orient toward the divine, md's included.

the lesson was that if you have the right state of
> mind, you can digest a rock. a lesson we all can learn in our humility
> if we all get down from our holier than thou (raw) high horses.

yes, i agree that may be possible, but to get to the place where we can
digest
a rock, would require so much ahimsa and other health factors in place it is
hard i suspect for any of us to imagine what it would really take to digest a
rock. actually for those dead doctors don't lie folks, they been digesting
small rocks for awhile. :-)

it is the soul that is important,
> not the outer form of what one eats. i have spoken. love, neil

i think i agree with bob, as long as we have a physical body, the food we put
in it will affect our spiritual wellbeing. i do think that a lite eating
native american pizza dude, could have more spirituality than a fanatic or
over eating raw foodist. there are many factors to spiritual health, food is
only one of many, but it is one that is important and at some point in
spiritual evolution cannot be denied, at least in my mind anyway. aloha, f

Subject:
Re: warning read with doct's supervision LOL
Date:
Sat, 02 Sep 2000
From:
Forest

> Alan wrote:
>
> Hi happy folks
>
> This is a report on vegetarian summer fest 2000 this july in Ashvile
> NC sponsored by the north amer. veg. society which I happily attended.

hey alan, thanks for the comprehensive report, i am appreciating your
thoughts
and contributions. a few years ago i had a whole tribe of ashville folks stay
here at the place in hawaii for a couple months. nice folks. we made some
drums together, after all those years i resisted putting a hide on the drum
cause i wanted a vegetarian drum. after a couple substitute experiments i
finally settled on pond liner material. it sounds as good as leather. aloha, f

Subject:
Re: life
Date:
Sat, 02 Sep 2000
From:
Forest

> Alan wrote:
>
> Forest
>
> Very fine post forest, do you think that living in hawaii has any
> influence on the quality of your writitng, you sound very content, at
> ease and mellowed out : )

yes alan, hawaii has a mellowing effect on one, "hawaii time" some call it,
siesta tropical adventure. it is a blessing and a curse at the same time. a
blessing because we all need to slow down and think about life and all it's
refinements. a curse because the refinements partially involve consensus
core
group organizational efforts in order to recreate the family spirit so we can
have a deeper bond with each other and the earth in nature. if the group is
too laid back the organization efforts do not get done. for 18 years that is
the blessing and curse i been living with here. all in all, it is no doubt way
less than the average american, and perhaps i have not totally learned
patience yet. at least i have a small homestead of trees to live with while
the huWoman family thinks it over.

.I
> just got off of the living foods bb if you want ot see negativity go
> there. This place is very peacefull and I love it.

is that the site with a lotta instinto folks, i think i went there once and
remember having a great debate with kirt nieft. is he still there? he loves to
be sarcastic to fruitarian types. i had fun trying to get beyond polarity with
him, he is a real challenge to have a diplomatic conversation with.

Subject:
Re: Life
Date:
Sun, 03 Sep 2000
From:
Forest

veto wrote:
>
> I would say, a vast majority of men think we are polygamous and a vast
> majority of women think we are monogamous...;-)
> Viviane

i suspect women tend toward monogamy more because of tradition and
because
they want some form of security in case a child comes out of the
patnership,
or if they get stuck in nature and don't know what to do if alone(remember
men
have traditionally been the first to explore new frontiers like nature). they
need support and help raising a child(in today's world most men and women
need
support even without a child), especially in today's chaotic mess. there are
numerous ways to get security and in my mind most create unhealthy forms
of
co-dependancy.

as we look to the future or new refined ways of living, i see a consensus
tribal nature based family as an expansion to the traditional hierarchical
nuclear family we were raised in. women's liberation in part is paving the way
for women to get more secure alone with themselves and nature if they
choose
to go for it. liberated women have the option to become secure in nature and
elsewhere in today's modern world provided they don't get pregnant before
they
find their skills and tribe.

one way in which sexual preferences might change is if a tribe were formed
that taught all it's members how to survive more with nature and less with
money, and
the tribe is bonded to a point where they look out for each other and the
children. when men and women have the opportunity to be part of a
consensus
tribe like that and the trust and love is high amonst them all, i suspect that
the sexual traditions may be refined or evolved. just what that evolved form
would take would be up to the consensus of the group. f

Subject:
Re: tantric sex/ answer to forest's questions
Date:
Sun, 03 Sep 2000
From:
Forest

attuner wrote:

i suppose
> the best description was that my kundalini energy rose and then exploded
in
> my pineal gland which caused enormous blissful waves of white light energy
> to permeate and nourish every atom and cell. perhaps it was a form of
> atomic transmutation. " if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body
> shall be full of light."

it seems to me if one experiences such a state, one would continue on with
it,
what stopped you from further investigation, refinement, or exploration?

i am not alone now, and i
> don't practise tantra. sometimes i wish i did, because there's typically
> more of a mess on the man's part when he ejaculates and the women i am
sure
> would prefer not to have semen running down or otherwise.

are you familiar with pressing on the peritoneum area between testicles and
anus as a means to avoid spilling sperm? good way to avoid the mess, tho
some
would say it is not a mess.

but i do know i was reading and
> influenced by the guru who was collecting rolls royces and eventually
> opened a community in oregon. he got deported and changed his name to
oshu
> or something close to it. you know who i mean? he wrote a book on tantra i
> have somewhere still. he made it simple if i remember correctly.

rasheneeshe(sp?) was his name, ya i remember when i first came to hawaii
around the food coop there were lots of his orange clad devotees around, i
interacted with some of them. he is dead now, but has an ashram in india
called osho. he was very controversial in india and the US because of his
liberated views on sex. his ashram in india has become the most popular
yuppie
singles spiritual hangout in the world. you need to have an aids test before
entering. i liked a lotta his ideas but he like many indian gurus lacked the
spirit of consensus in family matters.

so i was probably mixing a bit of all
> into my tantric soup. i synthesize quite a bit it seems.

me too, good way to avoid being mislead by the limitations of one idea.

> because i am in a relationship. masturbation is not an option. i don't like
> it. i'd rather lose my juices with a partner. sex seems to be another dance
> in the cosmic lela (sp?). aren't there womenfolk on the island you could
> meet, or do you choose to keep being alone? neil

i would like to meet women who are interested in consensus coopertive tribal
natural living, spirituality, self-sufficiency, etc. and not too hung up on
security issues in relation to men and nature, or at least willing to learn to
be more self reliant. as a result i am alone a lotta the time.

i can't even find men interested in cooperation because of their tendancy to
compete with each other. i am also an eccentric individual that many do not
understand. i get critisized a lot for wanting to try new things and not
fitting into society, even the more liberated approaches to life often find me
too weird to deal with. lookin for a few needles in the hay stack. slow but
movin. aloha, f

Subject:
Re: Life
Date:
Sun, 03 Sep 2000
From:
Forest

> Bob wrote:
>
> And it depends on your definition of monogamy, too, doesn't it? One
> partner for life or one partner at a time for life? Very few women, I
> think, have only ever had one sex partner in their whole lives.

good point you made here bob, i had a partner once who i got along with
pretty
well but because our lifestyles and habits were different and we had
different
energy levels i was reluctant to commit to her completely as in monogamy. i
was upfront and told her this and said i would be open to other partners. she
on the other hand wanted a monogamous relationship but knowing how i felt
ended up having several other sexual relationships in the course of time we
were together but would come back to me after. i on the other hand did not
have one outside relationship during that time. there are subtle and not so
subtle ways to have yer cake and eat it too. i suspect the reason why women
have "serial monogamy" is because of their insecurity issues. f

Subject:
Re: Life
Date:
Sun, 3 Sep 2000
From:
HFWESSELS

forest writes:

> if they get stuck in nature and don't know what to do if alone(
you need to be more watchful of what you are saying....this is really
sexist....I lived through the war with my mom, aunt, grandmother and we did
everything without the help of men...grew food, supplied firewood, (cutting
down trees, splitting them, dragging them home without a car), hid from the
enemy. And how many women raise their children alone vs. how many men?
Heide

Subject:
Re: Life
Date:
Sun, 03 Sep 2000
From:
Forest

jbmc wrote:
>
> In the ascension from Polygamy to Agamy, Ms. Viviane,
> as in the descension from Agamy to Polygamy, we come to a point
> called Monogamy.

i don't understand what you are saying here?
>
> Woman's favourable perception of Monogamy is in per-
> fect concordance with the "evolutionary" perspective. It would be
> far more disfavourable of Polygamy from the "involutionary" stand-
> point.

once again, i follow this for awhile and then get lost, what are you trying to
say here? i read yer article in the m2m, it was easier to understand. i agree
with a lotta what yer sayin about diet and spirit but of course by now you
realize i don't totally agree. in any event if it is your wish to put into
more easy to understand terms, i would be curious to know what yer tryin to
say above. i looked up agamy in the dictionary and couldn't find it. aloha, f

Subject:
Re: Life
Date:
Sun, 3 Sep 2000
From:
"veto"

First, I think we can agree that male and female sexuality are different.
In my own case, the first sexual encounter with a male is seldom very
satisfaying. My mate has to learn how to please me, know me and love me.
As the feelings grow deeper, the sex becomes better. So, I don't see myself
going all over again these steps with other men.
As far as needing a men when you have children, I think we know that our
child needs to know who his father is. Maybe we don't have to be engaged
sexualy with him but he has to be around for the kids. Sex is a great mean
for comunication. Maybe women want to use it slowly, one partner at a time,
to explore every possibilities it may offer.
Then, there is the genetic point of view. For a lot a species, only the
alfa male can copulate with the females so the best genetic stock is past to
the next generation. The females are not suppose to "want" the other
males.
So, are we "programed" to accept just one male?
Viviane

Subject:
Re: Life
Date:
Sun, 03 Sep 2000
From:
Forest

HFWESSELS wrote:
>
> >forest said: i suspect the reason why women
> > have "serial monogamy" is because of their insecurity issues. f
> >
> there you go again, putting your foot in your mouth....because of their
> "insecurity" issues? Heide

i guess i should have said in my opinion the reason why women in general have
serial monogamy is because of insecurity issues. i guess i assume for some
reason that people know sometimes i use general terms and am only ever
giving
my opinion of the moment on any subject here on the list.

in the book men are from mars, women are from venus, the **general** idea
is
that men search for women who are pretty, and women search for men who
offer
security in some form or another. as i said in an earlier post, some forms of
security are healthy, but in today's modern world apart from nature i see a
lotta co-dependancy insecurities. in general a little more in women but more
and more in men also. thank god/goddess there are some exceptions to the
rule.
i appoligize if i sounded sexist in any way, or too opinionated

Subject:
Re: leaves of celery-toxic??? / maybe??
Date:
Sun, 03 Sep 2000
From:
Forest

tom wrote:
>
> While I do agree with you that we all creat our own reality I still
> would like to know if anyone has heard this before. -tom

hi tom, from my limited perspective i suspect you are ok with celery leaves.
they are in the same family as parsley and carrot and i have heard tell of
people eating those greens. there are types of celery sold by seed companies
that have more leaf than stalk. course non of that proves anything. let us
know if you find anything out.

Subject:
Re: Life
Date:
Sun, 03 Sep 2000
From:
Forest

veto wrote:
>
> First, I think we can agree that male and female sexuality are different.
> In my own case, the first sexual encounter with a male is seldom very
> satisfaying. My mate has to learn how to please me, know me and love me.

and are you equally willing to learn to please him the way he likes instead of
yer preconcieved notions. also are you willing to teach him how to please you
rather than expect him to know. i find all women have slightly different
approaches to sex and unless taught by them what they like the man may
miss
the whole boat.

i was with a woman who would do nothin but tell me what i was
doing wrong. when i asked her repeatedly to teach me and tell me what she
liked she would clam up.

i think a lot of what makes female sexuality
different from men is the general tendancy for women to want security
from a
man. in sex that translates to spending lots of time with them before
sex(foreplay) and then when the woman sees the man may be around for
awhile
she opens up more.

in the new age with women becoming more equal, some women
may develop enough individual security of their own to relax some of the
fears
around security in sex and get turned on easier and quicker, more like a man
does or at least meet halfway in there somewhere.

> As the feelings grow deeper, the sex becomes better.

feelings of security??? perhaps sex becomes better when women don't need
or
expect security from a man. at least from the perspective and spirit of
women's lib this may be the trend of the future. i find talking to youger
women about sex indicates that they are more open to turning themselves
on or
at least not putting the whole responsibility on him. i do note however that
the
potential pregnancy factor is a major player in this affair. women will no
doubt always be on the lookout for security and monogamy untill there is
tribal family support for rearing the children that result.
.
> As far as needing a men when you have children, I think we know that our
> child needs to know who his father is. Maybe we don't have to be engaged
> sexualy with him but he has to be around for the kids.

i agree, and also with the support of an extended family the need for a
mother
and father would be reduced. even women and men in happy nuclear families
lack
the support of extended family to give them a time out from the children
now
and then,
unless their relatives are close by and share. without a timeout now and then
even nuclear families struggle a bit with the children and that often puts
stress on the couple and the relationship. we are not meant to be so
separated
from tribal bonding.

Sex is a great mean
> for comunication. Maybe women want to use it slowly, one partner at a
time,
> to explore every possibilities it may offer.

maybe men would wanna hang around more with one if he did not feel such
pressure around having to provide security. or at least the couple could
agree
to take equal responsibility for child rearing and security issues in a
natural setting where they are both at home a lot than the
traditional role playing where the man does most of it away from home.

> Then, there is the genetic point of view. For a lot a species, only the
> alfa male can copulate with the females so the best genetic stock is past
to
> the next generation. The females are not suppose to "want" the other
males.
> So, are we "programed" to accept just one male?
> Viviane

yes i would say we have tendancies but we also have the ability to evolve or
experiment with improving or refining how sex and the family operate. i
personally have had enough of the traditional role playing and ownership
concepts in relationships despite my love and loyalty to extended family
children. i
enjoyed yer comments veto. aloha and peace, f

Subject:
Re: Life-forest
Date:
Mon, 4 Sep 2000
From:
"veto"

Hi forest!
You seem to have a little problem with women demanding security from
you...;-). I do have a problem with men refusing to open up and keeping sex
a physical affair only. Maybe some are "insecure" about sharing their
feelings and intimacy? I'll stop here, I feel I disgress too much from the
subject...
Viviane

Subject:
re. forrest
Date:
Tue, 5 Sep 2000
From:
"eck"

in fact i think we could attract more
intelligent people to this list if we included natural living or holistic
wellness while maintaining an emphasis on raw foods. aloha, f
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------
Well i must say Forrest, i really like to way you think.
Raw foods is what brings us all together here and that is a common bond we
all have but its really beautiful to know that there are like minded people
who are willing to share their knowledge on what ever topic that is
requested....
The body will always heal itself given the right conditions and this means
more than just eating raw foods , just as it will maintain a healthy
homeostasis if given the correct balance, but i truly believe raw foods
alone is not the answer, we must find a correct balance and giving out
unconditional love and focusing on the good and not the bad is a good place
to begin and through this site we come together and share our views..we
are all here to learn and i think to just stick to raw foods when really
holistic is the answer for healing and maintaining homestatis.
For doesn't innate healing begin with a balanced diet, happy lifestyle and
clean environment and spirituality ( its amazing how many people when they
get sick start to meditate when they have never done it) and start to do
lots of things that they thought was a bit weird before ...
It is important that we learn to express love in our relationships to others
, we are not strangers here , just friends who have not met.
So with saying that i support more holistic views with health , healing ,
lifestyle and spiritual enlightenment issues that on this site,
......Cheers Erica

Subject:
Re: leaves of celery-toxic???
Date:
Mon, 04 Sep 2000
From:
Forest
>
> Billy,
>
> > If the taste is good, swallow.
> >
> > If the taste is bad, spit.
> >
> > Toxicity is relative.
> >
> > Experience a few times and you will get your answer.
>
> I like your simplicity. That's what I was trying to say above, but
> maybe less clearly, certainly less succintly.
>

i did that once in new mexico with a root plant growing in a creek. it tasted
good, i ate two small ones and almost died. just a word of caution. i looked
the plant up in a book when i got home, deadly poison. some mushrooms also,
a
small bite is deadly.

Subject:
Re: Life-forest
Date:
Mon, 04 Sep 2000
From:
Forest

veto wrote:
>
> Hi forest!
> You seem to have a little problem with women demanding security from
> you...;-).

i am trying to point out how and where i feel new age relationships are
getting stuck. i am sure men in general are stuck in such areas as being too
physical or in a hurry or whatever, clue me in if you have some more feelings
or thoughts about it. i would like to have a healthy relationship before i die
if possible.

I do have a problem with men refusing to open up and keeping sex
> a physical affair only.

how do you mean,"open up"? i would like to learn more how to please women in
relationship if it doesn't overcompromise my values.

Maybe some are "insecure" about sharing their
> feelings and intimacy?

i am sure there are some men like that. i feel i do ok in those areas, but if
you wanna elaborate i am open to understanding better what yer sayin.

I'll stop here, I feel I disgress too much from the
> subject...
> Viviane

you mean the subject of raw foods? i wish people here would not feel so
guilty
diverging, people can always delete. i find some of our off topic discussions
as fascinating as the raw food thing. in fact i think we could attract more
intelligent people to this list if we included natural living or holistic
wellness while maintaining an emphasis on raw foods. aloha, f

Subject:
Re: Warrior of the Rainbow
Date:
Mon, 04 Sep 2000
From:
Forest

NoGuile wrote:

> As a matter of fact any one of us can have this joy and love now - it is up
> to us!!!
> In His peace, Peter

hi peter, good point, i agree.

i notice you end yer posts with in *His* peace. why do you emphasize the
male
gender in spirituality? aloha, f

Subject:
Re: Warrior of the Rainbow
Date:
Mon, 04 Sep 2000
From:
Forest

veto wrote:
>
> I read the prophecy and found it beautifull and very accurate. Maybe we
> should start a group with people who would want to develop toward
becoming
> these warriors? I think we need to talk about how we feed ourself, of
> course, but also about how to propagate love, physical, psychological and
> spiritual health? What about creating a egroup "Warriors of the Rainbow"?
> Viviane

the general idea sounds good to me. one way we could do that on this list and
still not bother the ones who want to talk raw foods only would be to suggest
to the list owner that we include natural living and holistic wellness as
subtopics to the main discussion of raw foods. there could even be a code in
the subject title to denote this divergence so others would not feel burdened
if not interested. i think it is good not to divide into separate groups
because of the overlapping subject matter. too narrow a focus and it
becomes
too narrow minded. i might choose a different title than warrior since to me
it implys war and violence. in any event, mahalo for sharing, f

Subject:
Re: Warrior of the Rainbow
Date:
Mon, 4 Sep 2000
From:
NoGuile

Hi Forest,
You made a good point - why do I refer to God as male gender? Probably I do
not know any better or after I studied all the Eastern religions the New Age
and all the Biblical religions, it just happens that Bible uses that generic
form.
In God's joy Forest, Peter

Subject:
Re: re. forrest
Date:
Mon, 04 Sep 2000
From:
Forest

eck wrote:

> It is important that we learn to express love in our relationships to others
> , we are not strangers here , just friends who have not met.
> So with saying that i support more holistic views with health , healing ,
> lifestyle and spiritual enlightenment issues that on this site,
> ......Cheers Erica

i agree, as another raw food friend bernarr says, "you are beautiful and i
love you, everyone else too for that matter. member that song, "what the
world
needs now, is love sweet love"? wow i suppose i am boring some with this
mushy
stuff. aloha, f

Subject:
Re: leaves of celery-toxic???
Date:
Mon, 04 Sep 2000
From:
Forest

hi greg, thanks for the comprehensive report on plant toxins, very
interesting. f
me thinks it's time to become a breatharian. :-)

Subject:
Re: Warrior of the Rainbow .. go 4 it..
Date:
Mon, 4 Sep 2000
From:
"veto"

Not a bad idea to stay here if the people who just want to talk about food
don't mind. We have to remember this was their list in the first place and
we can't impose ourselfs. So, if someone wouldn't be happy with the
broadening of the subject, I wish he/she will tell us. I will personnaly be
very respectfull of that and start a new group called ".... of the Rainbow"
( ;-) Forest).
Viviane

Subject:
Re: MS
Date:
Mon, 04 Sep 2000
From:
Forest

NoGuile wrote:
>
> Hi Carol,
> You brought up an interesting story - in my terms "why sufferers do not
want
> to look in to alternative ways? Medical establishment got most of us, it is
> hard to think for ourselves. This is true in all fields, including religions
> - most us follow a "good example" without looking over all possibilities.
> In His joy, Peter

the masses operate on big brother hierarcical conditioning, the pecking order
mentality, if the pecking persists the mind becomes dulled and people
become
sheeple and follow the crowd like a buncha lemmings. it's ok tho, we all do it
to one degree or another, we all have a choice. what we all are doing on some
level is perfect because the spirit lives on no matter what and whenever we
get bored with our situation we can act on the choices. in spirit joy, f

Subject:
Re: Warrior of the Rainbow .. go 4 it..
Date:
Mon, 04 Sep 2000
From:
Forest

veto wrote:
>
> Not a bad idea to stay here if the people who just want to talk about food
> don't mind. We have to remember this was their list in the first place and
> we can't impose ourselfs.

actually it is the list owner's list. i really don't think we can impose
ourselves under the conditions i described. i would not do it if there is not
a consensus, tho reaching consensus is difficult with more than twelve. but i
might ask some questions of any against the idea since i see only good
coming
of it, and we are already doing it anyway. just maybe good to get it in
writing to be more clear. i would be willing to appoach the list owner if
there are no objections.

start a new group called ".... of the Rainbow"
> ( ;-) Forest).
> Viviane

how bout "spirits" of the rainbow or "friends"?

Subject:
Re: Warrior of the Rainbow
Date:
Mon, 04 Sep 2000
From:
Forest

NoGuile wrote:
>
> Hi Forest,
> Don't you think that we better wait until we can dig in deeper on these
> special life style issues?
> With His unconditional love, Peter

not sure what you mean here?

> << NoGuile wrote:
> > As you know there are few secrets to learn.
>
> not sure what you mean here, i still seem to be learning secrets every
day,
> even here on this list. f

Subject:
Re: food and karma/ minimal weight../OPTIONS...
Date:
Mon, 04 Sep 2000
From:
Forest

Billy wrote:
>
> here is my answer:

> There was this very old (around 110 years old) yoga master.
> He looked quite young except for the fact that he was walking
> slowly. He was always saying: occidentals hurry, worry, no good.
> So was he walking slowly by choice or due to his age??

one question in regards to physical and mental stamina, is does the individual
have enough strength and intelligence and wisdom to survive in nature? if not
how do they survive and what kinds of karma to they develop as a result?
>
> At 120 i can kick ass, pull 6 people in a rckshaw...

are you saying you are 120? why do we need to kick ass anyway, isn't there a
more spiritual term to describe physical ability?
>
> Competition ceases to exist at a certain time.

i hope yer right about that, i hope i am ready :-) the rest of yer response to
neil was hard for me to decipher.

Subject:
Re: leaves of celery-toxic???
Date:
Mon, 04 Sep 2000
From:
Forest
>
> veto wrote:
> >
> > With the atmospheric pollution, I would better be a purewateronlyanian ;-)
>
> water ain't that pure either. i think if we wanna carry this to the end of the
"rainbow" we will end up holding our breath in space or better yet astral
traveling without the need
> for physical sustainence or body. ;-)

Subject:
Re: skunk
Date:
Mon, 04 Sep 2000
From:
Forest

judy wrote:

> Does anyone else here feel this way? I always thought it was Gods way of
> telling me that I am walking a different path.
> judy

judy, i can't say i have quite the same feelings you do about skunk smell but
i remember wondering why some found it so disgusting, i found it somewhat
intriguing if that's the right word. i suppose if we get real close up it
might be a bit more annoying. i used to have a pet skunk when i was a
teenager. i got it when it was real small and raised it like a cat. it never
sprayed me, tho we would wrestle and play and it would turn and pretend it
was
gonna spray. i lost my sense of smell bout 20 years ago from falling from a
tree on my head on pavement, wonder how it would affect me now. i can't
smell,
but if i take a deep breath i can taste things in the air like smoke,
chemicals, etc. ramblin again......aloha, f

Subject:
Re: TO ALL: you can watch world peace summit on the
web/"warriors" name
Date:
Mon, 04 Sep 2000
From:
Forest

attuner wrote:
>
> hi y'all - just found out if you go to beliefnet.com and register, and
> if you have realplayer or download after you logon beliefnet.com, you
> can see and hear the proceedings at the UN as if you were there.
> wonderful! have fun now. love, neil

thanks for the tip, sounds interesting, i've always wanted to know just how
the UN operates.
>
> p.s. i only agreed with peter. i am not approving of a new website or
> name change for "warriors of the rainbow". if it is that important for
> y'all to do so, contact jr because after all, he's the man and the
> real deal. i am still temping out of friendship to him and y'all.

i don't think any of us are proposing changing the name of this website. just
wonderin if he was willing to add topics like natural living and wholistic
health as subtopics with the emphasis and main topic on raw foods. would
round
out the wellness here some more me thinks, and take away the doubt and
guilt
feelings of not knowing for sure what's ok. aloha, f

Subject:
Re: Warrior of the Rainbow .. go 4 it../precision...
Date:
Mon, 04 Sep 2000
From:
Forest

veto wrote:
>
> I was thinking...if we stay here, how new people will find us? If someone
> isn't interested in raw but wants to know more about the Warriors of the
> Rainbow, what will they search for at egroup?
> Viviane

how will new people find you somewhere else any easier? most visionary folks
are open to ideas like raw foods. i think we are beginning to irritate some
folks with this discussion, how bout if i contact the list owner and see how
he feels and in the meantime we not talk too much on it. or we could talk in
private i guess. actually perhaps we all have different ideas. my main goal is
simply to feel relaxed talking about holistic health ideas with the main
emphasis being raw foods. f

Subject:
Re: Warrior of the Rainbow .. go 4 it..
Date:
Mon, 04 Sep 2000
From:
Forest

NoGuile wrote:
>
> War happens to be correct to me, because it is a spiritual war against
powers
> of evil and not against anybody else.
> His love, Peter

in my mind the spirit does not fight wars, everything in nature is good and
may have limitations and if we tire of them we can make choices and move
on.
in the world of polarity there is a constant battle of good vs evil. i find
that limiting and polarizing. f

Subject:
Re: food and karma/ minimal weight../OPTIONS...
Date:
Mon, 04 Sep 2000
From:
Forest

Billy wrote:
>
> If i remember correctly "kick ass was the expression used
> by Neil first i just replied with it for clarity.

do you always repeat what others do without thinking about it, words are
powerful.
>
> When you believe you need to care for yourself, your concern
> for survival in the wild looks justified.

i just mean to be aware of nature, how it operates, and how we naturally
survive in it with the least amount of violence or karma to the earth and life
and nature.
>
> We can also believe that life provides.

yes life provides and it also taketh away, either can happen at any time.
>
> Many times i walk and find money on my path.
>
> Even in the ocean i find dollar bills.
>
> I found some on my windshield.
>
> Strangers approach me and give me money.
>
> Strangers put money where they know i will find it.
>
> Why should i be cocern to provide for myself?

in my mind modern money especially is not natural and is corupt and usually
has little to do living naturally or spiritually or intuitively. it can be
used wisely if in the hands of a wise person but in general those who find
money are not necessarily the wise shaman's i would seek out to advise me
on
how to live naturally. it is knowledge and wisdom of nature that really
provides for us in physical, mental, and spiritual terms, at least in my
opinion. one cannot in my mind buy ones way into heaven, tho for thousands
of
years male dominant hierarcical religions have taught otherwise.
>
> In nature the same thing can happen. A fruit can fall just
> for you to eat it. Food can attract you via color, smell.

yes, but who owns the property, in the world today of increasing population
density it is becoming more and more difficult for the whole population to
forage from the land, but it is still possible in places, i did it in hawaii
when i fist got here.
>
> Intuition can guide you to go to the right place, to do the
> right thing.

intuition by itself without the balance of the practical logical brain is no
better than the one who operates on practical only. there needs to be
balance
in my mind. that's where knowledge(practical) and wisdom(intuition) really
open the spirit.
>
> Livin does not have to be a reproduction of our past expe-
> riences.

no, but it is good to learn from the past and modify and refine as we go.
there is much valuable knowledge to be learned from our past as well as
intuitive visionary influence.
>
> We create our life.
>
> Objective reality is a myth without substance.
>
> How would you put Samadi in words?
>
> I can not put my experiences in word.

isn't that what you are tryin to do here? seems we try knowing there are
limits.
>
> I might come close so people who already lived them will
> understand.
>
> This kind of teaching is not done by words.

i agree, the best way to teach is by example, words and intuitive thought are
useful also.
>
> I am open to chat. Do you have a chatroom?

i had an icq number, haven't used it for a long time. f

Subject:
Re: Fw: HELP!!!! URGENT ADVICE NEEDED FOR MY
BABY Part 2
Date:
Wed, 06 Sep 2000
From:
Forest

Coya wrote:
>
> I sounds like your baby has candida--prob due from all the antibiotics--find
> a naturopath experienced in this--I would cut out all fruits and sweets for
> now to start.
> Ruth

maybe some form of healthy colon bacteria such as acidophilis, rejuvelac,
sour
kraught, seed yogurt, etc. to reintroduce some balance. f

Subject:
Re: THANKS SO MUCH TO ALL
Date:
Thu, 07 Sep 2000
From:
Forest

once again, pump yerself and the kid with lots of healthy bacteria. the
diarhea and cadida should start to decrease a bit on that alone. the
antibiotics destroy the good bacteria. this is a simple step to do while
waiting for more advice. aloha, forest

Subject:
Re: [warriors-of-the-rainbow] Hello...
Date:
Fri, 08 Sep 2000
From:
Forest

MountSion wrote:

> You can make changes and direction of life a little quicker than married
> people and families with kids, then it becomes a common effort - do you
think
> so?

yes i agree, once in a family of trust for optimum success it is best to
operate with consensus. easier said than done, even with two.

> Is heaven on earth an attitude or is it our surroundings and conditions,
what
> do you think?

i think it is a bit of both, with emphasis on attitude. aloha, f

Subject:
Re: spiritual
Date:
Sun, 10 Sep 2000
From:
Forest

Mark wrote:

> Concepts, words, definitions and references are the mind's attempts to
> impose meaning on something it cannot grasp. At best, they are only
> pointers to the Ultimate. Far more often, they keep us imprisoned in
> memory, blocking out the Now. Instead of searching for meaning, why not
> live in a state of not-knowing, or what is sometimes called Divine
> Ignorance? Here we are simply facing What Is, resisting nothing, completely
> open to the unknown. We are demanding nothing of the Universe. We are
only
> accepting what it offers us.

good point mark
>
> Your sign-off line "In His joy" says it all: You live in the absence of the
> "person" and its desperate clutching at security via memory and
projection,
> and instead there is only God (Vastness, Consciousness, Awareness, the
> Unconditioned. . . )

in "His" joy is not living in the absence of the "person", rather it is
applying a "person"ality to the complexity of nature and consciousness.

Subject:
sensory deprivatoin
Date:
Tue, 12 Sep 2000
From:
Forest

> Bob wrote:
>
> It makes me wonder what taking a fast in such an environment would be
> like.

hi bob, interesting idea, i would like to build one someday. a friend of mine
went into the lava tube i have in ocean view and fasted for awhile for similar
reasons of sensory deprivation. it would also be a good way to access the
intuitive mind. f

Subject:
Re: spiritual
Date:
Tue, 12 Sep 2000
From:
Forest

NoGuile wrote:
>
> Hi Forest, I can see that you are thinking.

correct me if i am wrong, but it feels like yer statement above is indicating
that i am thinking but in the wrong direction or way?

It also looks to me that you are
> disappointed by organized male dominated religions.

i am not disappointed with traditional religion, i fills an important role in
society for those who still need a big brother to guide them to spiritual
relms. i do see it outdated for some tho and also if left unimproved could
lead to mass destruction thru ecological destruction.

I agree, that most
> religious organizations have failed in many ways and the history has lots of
> black clouds.

it's all ok, just an evolutionary cycle that needs to be recreated and/or
refined. if we don't keep religious concepts refining, who will? do you feel
that for some reason we have figured out the ultimate approach to spirit?

> The comment was made: "should we through out the baby with the wash
water or
> something like that."

no, i think the masses need the baby religious concepts while some of us are
ready for adolescent or more mature religion.

What I see is that if there is God, a Creator, then He
> will communicate to us, independent if men fail to see that or willing to
> respond to it.

i think we need to be actively seeking higher consciousness rather than
waiting for it to seek us out.

> I can see that He does communicate to us if we are willing to listen and
> miracles happen.
>
> In His great wonder, Peter

peter, you seem open and intelligent, in an earlier post you indicated you
refer to god/goddess as a he outta habit. do you feel this habit and
continuation of it can be a limiting? it sounds old fashioned to refer to
universal consciousness as gender based, just wonder why you would insist
on
continuing using it, words are very powerful and are subconsciously
programing
us to believe a certain way. i have the same feeling about refering to earth
as mother or female. seems narrow minded to me or trying genderize and
humanize an incredibly complex system. seems like it has a subtle or not so
subtle effect of holding us back from expanded consciousness. feel free tho,
not tryin to put it down so much as to add refinement.

in the spirit of natural wonder, f

Subject:
Re: Decompression/Colleen, Pilates anyone?
Date:
Tue, 12 Sep 2000
From:
Forest

> << on star trek. there is
> only the creative moment that is now, and it is a precious gift of life
> eternal. that is why we call it the present. are you waiting for something
> to happen, or are you willing to do it NOW??!! let me know if i can help
> anymore besides motivation. neil >>

i think this kind of prodding and pushing can cause people to withdraw
somewhat from advice, diplomacy rather than criticism may cause folks to
open
more to new ideas. i guess i still need to learn that also.

Subject:
Re: Re Billy
Date:
Tue, 12 Sep 2000
From:
Forest

Shari V wrote:
>
> Anyone else ever do any feng shui remedies? I'd be interested in hearing
> your journey.

shari, i haven't investigated feng shui too far yet, but i already feel it has
limitations. the general concept makes sense to me but i feel it is flawed by
old outdated traditional concepts. i am sure using the current feng shui
concepts one can begin to improve living situations, however in my mind all
knowledge is evolving. aloha f

Subject:
Re: Decompression/Colleen, Pilates anyone?/ nomi's note to
neil
Date:
Tue, 12 Sep 2000
From:
attuner

a "coach" pushes his athletes when they need to go out and simply do it,
just like the nike commercial: "just do it." there are times when one
resists and defends that inertia: "i am sick." that one is a victim.
identification. "oh, i am______." fill in the blank. depressed? lonely?sad?
worried? etc. etc. and there are times when my true friends come along and
give me a good boot to get me off my sorry ass and be more involved in
life. i trust we, or me only?, are giving 'boots' where needed and
responded to.
my reconsideration is the note from nomi which pointed out that
there are opposite weather patterns on the planet right now other than
those i may be experiencing. thanks nomi! good point.
and yes forest, i do 'push' for optimum health. if i don't in my
sphere, in my patch of the Garden, who will? and i appreciate and welcome
your comment that my way may not exactly be the most tactful or
diplomatic.
so if you read my words as criticism, then that is how you may have
interpreted them. full speed ahead on the road of health. no detours. if
you lost your map, i'll lend you mine. love, neil

Subject:
Re: Decompression/Colleen, Pilates anyone?/ nomi's note to
neil
Date:
Tue, 12 Sep 2000
From:
Forest

attuner wrote:

> and yes forest, i do 'push' for optimum health. if i don't in my
> sphere, in my patch of the Garden, who will?

maybe it is not necessary for any to push each other any more. in the 70's
there were those group encounter things where people "pushed each other's
buttons". i tried it out like many and learned some neat things about
interacting in groups, but like many others i lost interest in this approach.
something about it didn't feel comfortable to me. i decided to look into other
approaches and came up with the idea of "tickling hearts" as a refinement of
pushing buttons. it seems to improve friendships and can lead to cooperation
and other neat loving things.

and i appreciate and welcome
> your comment that my way may not exactly be the most tactful or
diplomatic.

thanks for the acknowledgement.

> so if you read my words as criticism, then that is how you may have
> interpreted them.

not so much criticism, as pushy big brother or high priest or whatever.

>full speed ahead on the road of health.

ok, same to you.

no detours. if
> you lost your map, i'll lend you mine. love, neil

big brother????? aloha, f

Subject:
Re: Decompression/Colleen, Pilates anyone?/ nomi's note to
neil
Date:
Tue, 12 Sep 2000
From:
attuner

sometimes 'little' brothers or sisters get lost in their detours. while tickling
hearts is a very nice way of
helping, sometimes drawing a map in the moment, if you don't have a map
handy to give straight away,
is a lot more practical. and i find spirituality to not only be practical, but very
affirmative and dynamic.
this could be considered pushy, and you are not the first to say it. this is
who i am. we all have our
styles. yours may be 'cubism' while mine could be 'pointalism.' however we do
it, we are artists. some
may be more attracted to your style and even buy it if it's for sale (some
artists wouldn't ever consider
selling their work - it's just for them and they would consider themselves
selling their art as a form of
prostitution). i think we all have something to 'sell,' altho i hate being a
salesman. i'd rather be a
hubsman like i recently stated.
so what if my style is different than yours? do you need to comment
about my way? you always
seem to have a comment. great. i ask , ONCE AGAIN, that you keep your
personal comments and
questions like "big brother?????" PRIVATE! my way is simply different than
yours. and i thank god
it is becos i want to be who i am, not as you may want me to be. PLEASE,
keep your personal
comments/criticisms when directed at individuals private. this is NOT the
first time you have been asked.
you trample the line here and it's all i can do is ask vs. censorship because of
repeated violations. why
keep violating the rules about individuals on this list? keep it private. thank
you. neil